Barrett v. Berry

Background

Joseph Anthony Barrett, representing himself, sued San Quentin State Prison officers and Dr. Berger under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that on February 7, 2017, Berry pepper-sprayed him after he had been subdued, that other officers failed to intervene, that Dr. Berger used excessive force by having him forcibly injected with medication, and that defendants were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs by delaying decontamination from the pepper spray.

Before the second pepper-spraying, Barrett had attempted suicide, was pulling out the sutures in his arms, and was resisting the cell-extraction team. The parties disputed what happened after an officer first sprayed Barrett. Barrett said he had been tackled, restrained, and had stopped resisting when Berry sprayed him without warning. Defendants said Barrett was still actively resisting and ignoring instructions when Berry used a short burst of pepper spray. The parties did not dispute that the second spray lasted one to two seconds.

Exhaustion and Timeliness

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to complete available prison grievance procedures before filing a lawsuit about prison conditions. Defendants argued that Barrett had not done so because his first appeal was filed after the 30-day deadline. Barrett argued that the process was effectively unavailable because he was housed in the Psychiatric Inpatient Program, was on suicide watch, was being forcibly medicated, and repeatedly sought assistance filing an appeal.

The court concluded that defendants had not met their burden to prove failure to exhaust. Barrett’s appeal challenging cancellation of his original appeal was initially granted because his mental condition and medication made assistance necessary, although that decision was later reversed. The court found that the reversal did not account for Barrett’s specific circumstances and that his documented requests for help showed he was attempting to pursue the process. The court also found that the appeal sufficiently alerted prison officials to the nature of his complaint, even though it did not identify the incident date or the individual defendants.

Defendants also argued that the lawsuit was filed too late. The court applied California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims and explained that the period is paused while a prisoner completes the required grievance process. Because Barrett spent more than four months pursuing two related appeals, the court found that his lawsuit was timely.

Summary-Judgment Rulings

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome. The court must generally view disputed evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion.

The court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Barrett’s excessive-force claim against Berry. Viewing the evidence in Barrett’s favor, a jury could find that Berry used pepper spray after Barrett had stopped resisting and had been restrained. The court explained that using chemical agents in greater quantities than necessary to restore order, or solely to cause pain, violates the Eighth Amendment.

The court granted summary judgment to Dougery, Gaitan, Castro, Giminez, Strayhorn, and King on Barrett’s failure-to-intervene claims. Even assuming Barrett’s account was true, the second pepper-spraying lasted only one to two seconds, leaving the other officers no reasonable opportunity to intervene. The court also granted summary judgment to Dr. Berger on the claims concerning the cell extraction, the injection, and medical treatment. It found that removing Barrett from the cell was justified by his self-harm and resistance, that the injection followed a suicide attempt and occurred under a court order permitting involuntary medication, and that the roughly 30-minute sequence of fresh air, a shower, an eyewash station, and a bath did not show deliberate indifference to his medical needs.

The opinion’s qualified-immunity discussion refers to “Berger” when discussing the second pepper-spraying and says that this defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity. That reference appears inconsistent with the rest of the opinion, which identifies Berry as the defendant who used the second spray and grants summary judgment to Dr. Berger. The final order leaves only the excessive-force claim against Berry.

Final Order and Further Proceedings

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It dismissed all defendants and claims except the excessive-force claim against Berry. It denied defendants’ motion to strike Barrett’s additional filings. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Illman for mediation or settlement proceedings and ordered Barrett to participate.