Adams v. Van Kleek

Background

Henry Desean Adams, a state prisoner at the California Men’s Colony, filed this self-represented civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He seeks money damages from Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office Deputies Justin Van Kleeck, Christopher Kooy, and William Weston for alleged excessive force at the Martinez Detention Facility on August 22, 2018.

Adams says he briefly argued with Weston about the filing process for his civil complaints, walked away, and later returned with legal documents. He says Van Kleeck ordered him to be handcuffed, and that after he refused, Van Kleeck grabbed him, Kooy tripped him, Kooy kneed him in the head, Van Kleeck punched the back of his head, and Weston punched his stomach area. Adams says he did not fight back.

The deputies describe a different event. They say Adams refused to be handcuffed, took a fighting stance, physically resisted efforts to control his arms, and continued resisting after the group fell to the ground. They say the force used was intended to gain compliance and that Adams had no independently verified injuries other than a small cut on his finger; a later examination found tenderness but normal x-rays.

Exhaustion of jail grievances

The defendants argued that the Prison Litigation Reform Act required dismissal because Adams had not properly completed the jail’s grievance process. The jail process required a verbal complaint, a written grievance within 48 hours, and appeals through specified levels of review.

Adams filed a grievance on August 24, within the 48-hour period. Although it mainly discussed money allegedly missing from his commissary account, it also said that the deputies had slammed, kicked, punched, and kneed him. The grievance was denied on September 3. Adams did not file an appeal within the stated three-day deadline.

The court agreed that the defendants showed an available grievance process and that Adams did not timely appeal the August 24 grievance. But Adams had stated under penalty of perjury that the grievance process was “cut short.” He later filed additional requests mentioning the incident. One September 12 grievance was rejected as improperly completed, not grievable, and outside the 48-hour period. The court concluded that these responses supported Adams’s position that further administrative remedies were effectively unavailable and that an appeal would have been obviously futile. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the exhaustion defense.

Excessive-force claim

For the excessive-force claim, the court applied an objective reasonableness standard: whether the force was reasonable from the perspective of an officer at the scene, considering the need for force, the amount used, the perceived security threat, any injury, efforts to limit the force, and whether Adams was actively resisting.

The court treated Adams’s verified complaint as evidence opposing summary judgment when based on personal knowledge and specific facts. It found two material factual disputes. First, the evidence conflicted about whether Adams was resistant or combative and whether force was necessary. Second, even if some force was warranted, the evidence conflicted about whether the amount and type of force were objectively reasonable. A reasonable jury could find the defendants’ force unreasonable. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the merits of the excessive-force claim as well.

Order

The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It referred the excessive-force claim to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman for settlement proceedings under the Northern District of California’s Pro Se Prisoner Settlement Program and stayed the action, except for matters necessary to the settlement proceedings, until further order.

The court also denied Adams’s two pending discovery motions—one seeking records involving Nurse Practitioner Paul Manaut and one seeking court submission or subpoenas for evidence—without prejudice to refiling if the case proceeds to trial. The order states that if the matter does not settle, the case will proceed to trial.