Horton v. Molina

Background

Michael Horton, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against J. Molina and Sergeant Parsons, correctional employees at a Department of State Hospitals facility in Salinas Valley State Prison. The remaining claims alleged that Molina used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, retaliated against Horton for exercising First Amendment rights, and that Parsons failed to protect Horton from Molina’s use of force.

Horton said that Molina threatened him on September 2, 2015, and again the next day. Horton claimed that after he reported the threats, Molina hit him, slammed his head into the ground, pressed a knee into his neck, and pulled his arm hard enough to fracture his elbow. Horton also said Molina slammed his face into a cell window while he was handcuffed. Horton sustained a nondisplaced fracture in his right elbow and used an elbow splint for about two months.

Molina gave a different account. He said Horton had harassed Dr. Johnson, failed to follow orders to lie face down and present his hands for handcuffing, resisted officers, and used vulgar language. Molina said he used the minimum force necessary to remove Horton’s arm for handcuffing and denied hitting Horton, threatening him, or slamming his head into a wall. Parsons said he was not Molina’s supervisor and did not recall speaking with Horton that afternoon. Three officers’ reports supported Molina’s account, while another officer reported that Horton appeared to cooperate with handcuffing.

Motions and Legal Standards

The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. At this stage, the court must view conflicting evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion.

The court had previously denied defendants’ motion arguing that Horton failed to properly complete available prison grievance procedures. Horton’s summary-judgment motion had also previously been denied without prejudice to later consideration after mediation. After mediation did not settle the case, defendants filed an opposition and a cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Horton did not oppose defendants’ motion.

Excessive Force

For an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim, the key question is whether prison officials used force in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or instead used force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Relevant considerations include the need for force, the amount used, the injury, the threat officials reasonably perceived, and efforts to reduce the force.

The court found clear factual disputes about how much force Molina used and how much resistance Horton presented. If defendants’ evidence were believed, a fact-finder could conclude that Molina used reasonable force to remove Horton from the yard after Horton disobeyed orders and harassed Dr. Johnson. If Horton’s sworn account were believed, a fact-finder could conclude that Molina used malicious or sadistic force.

Because those disputed facts could affect the result, the court denied summary judgment to both sides on the excessive-force claim. The court also rejected Molina’s qualified-immunity argument. Qualified immunity can protect a government official unless the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established. Taking Horton’s account as true for purposes of the motion, the court concluded that no reasonable official could believe it was lawful to hit a compliant inmate, slam his head into the ground, kneel on his neck, break his elbow, and later slam his head into a window while he was handcuffed.

Retaliation

Horton claimed that Molina assaulted him because Horton had challenged or otherwise spoken against him. The court held that the evidence did not show that Horton engaged in protected speech that caused Molina to use force against him. The court also stated that Horton had no First Amendment right to make harassing or threatening comments to Dr. Johnson, and there was no evidence that Molina’s decision was motivated by any protected speech.

The court found no triable factual issue that could support a valid retaliation claim and granted summary judgment to Molina on that claim.

Failure to Protect

Horton claimed that he told Parsons about Molina’s threats and that Parsons failed to prevent the later assault. An official violates the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect an inmate only when the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to the inmate’s safety.

The court found no evidence that Parsons was Molina’s supervisor or had authority to separate Molina and Horton. Parsons said that, if he learned Molina had threatened Horton, he would have informed Molina’s supervisor, and Horton offered no evidence that Parsons failed to take that step. The court also found no evidence that Parsons believed Molina had actually made the threat or that Parsons knew Molina posed an excessive risk of harm. The court therefore granted summary judgment to Parsons on the failure-to-protect claim.

Disposition

The court denied Horton’s summary-judgment motion. It denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion on Horton’s claim against Molina for excessive force, and granted defendants’ motion on Horton’s retaliation and failure-to-protect claims. The court also granted defendants leave to file an oversized brief until the ordered briefing schedule was completed.

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Illman for further mediation under the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The order stated that further proceedings were stayed except for proceedings related to mediation. The mediation was to occur within 120 days, and the mediation proceedings were to remain confidential unless the parties agreed otherwise.