Cisneros v. Vangilder

Background

This order followed a jury trial in two related matters: Cisneros v. Vangilder and Manriquez v. Vangilder. The plaintiffs, Daniel Cisneros and Daniel Manriquez, were prisoners housed at Pelican Bay State Prison. The defendants included corrections officers Justin Vangilder, Juan Vasquez, and Sergeant Scott Cupp.

On June 4, 2015, a T-16 oleoresin capsicum chemical grenade discharged in the housing unit’s control booth. The plaintiffs testified that chemical vapors entered their cells, causing difficulty breathing, coughing, gagging, choking, panic, and burning in their eyes, noses, and throats. They and their witnesses testified that prisoners repeatedly requested medical attention and the opportunity to leave their cells and decontaminate. The defendants denied that the plaintiffs or other prisoners made those requests.

After Vangilder told Cupp that the canister had malfunctioned and only partially deployed, Cupp took the canister outside, removed its pin, and released its spoon so it would fully deploy. He then left, took the spent canister to the prison armory, and did not check on the prisoners or ask other officers to determine whether they needed medical attention.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, alleging that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of serious harm and to serious medical needs. They also alleged negligence against Vangilder and Vasquez.

Jury Verdict and Motion

The jury found Vangilder negligent and awarded each plaintiff $1,000 against him. It found Vasquez negligent and deliberately indifferent, awarding each plaintiff $1,500 against him. It found Cupp deliberately indifferent and awarded each plaintiff $2,500 against him, for total damages of $5,000 per plaintiff.

The jury also answered special questions about qualified immunity. It found that Cupp was not aware that the plaintiffs suffered harmful effects from exposure to the chemical grenade and did not know that the defendants’ ventilation efforts were inadequate.

Cupp renewed his motion for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), arguing that he was entitled to qualified immunity. He alternatively sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Rule 49(b)(3)(C). The court had deferred ruling on his earlier Rule 50(a) motion during trial.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity protects government officials unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The court explained that deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness: an official must know facts showing a substantial risk of serious harm and must actually draw that inference.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that Cupp could be liable merely because he should have known about the risk. It relied on the jury’s specific findings that Cupp was not aware that either plaintiff suffered harmful effects and was not aware that ventilation was inadequate. The court concluded that, given those findings, Cupp was entitled to qualified immunity.

Because it resolved the motion on qualified-immunity grounds, the court did not address Cupp’s alternative Rule 49 argument.

Damages and Disposition

The plaintiffs argued that they should receive the full $5,000 awarded by the jury from the defendants collectively. The court rejected that argument because the verdict form assigned separate amounts to each defendant. It held that, because Cupp was qualifiedly immune, each plaintiff was entitled to $1,000 from Vangilder and $1,500 from Vasquez, for $2,500 from those two defendants.

The court granted Cupp’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law. It directed the Clerk to enter judgment against Vangilder for $1,000 and against Vasquez for $1,500, consistent with the jury verdict, and in favor of Cupp. It also directed the Clerk to close the case.