Williams v. Austen

Background

Emmanuel Donteze Williams, a state prisoner incarcerated at Pelican Bay State Prison, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Z. Austen, a correctional officer at that prison. Williams alleged that Austen violated the Eighth Amendment by using excessive force when he fired a 40 mm. launcher during a prison-yard riot on June 7, 2018. Williams alleged that the round injured him and caused him to lose a tooth. He sought monetary and punitive damages.

The parties presented different accounts of the incident. The evidence showed that a riot involving seven inmates began as inmates returned from the yard. Austen, stationed more than 100 feet away, ordered the inmates to get down. Most complied, but the inmates involved in the fight continued after officers deployed several chemical-agent grenades. Austen stated that two inmates were attacking a third inmate, that the third inmate faced an immediate risk of serious injury, and that Austen fired one 40 mm. round at the thigh of one aggressor. The round appeared to hit that inmate.

Williams said he felt an impact to his upper lip during the fight and later discovered that he had lost a tooth. He did not know at the time what caused the impact and later inferred that the 40 mm. round had struck him. The parties disputed whether the round caused his injury. The court treated Williams as having been hit by the round for purposes of deciding summary judgment, meaning a motion asking the court to rule without a trial when no legally significant factual dispute requires a jury’s decision.

Excessive-Force Analysis

The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from using force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The court considered the need for force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the extent of the injury, the threat Austen reasonably perceived, and the efforts made to reduce the severity of the response.

The court concluded that some force was needed because a riot was continuing, the inmates had not followed orders, and chemical agents had not stopped the fighting. The court also found that Austen used the launcher only after those measures failed, aimed at an area less likely to cause serious injury, and acted to protect an inmate who was being attacked. The court stated that Williams continued fighting after feeling the impact and stopped only after the chemical agents made it difficult for him to breathe.

Although the parties disputed the extent and cause of Williams’s injury, the court held that the injury question did not by itself establish excessive force. Viewing the evidence in Williams’s favor, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Austen fired the round maliciously or sadistically to cause harm. The court therefore held that the force did not violate Williams’s Eighth Amendment rights.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a protection from civil damages when an official’s conduct did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established in the specific circumstances. The court separately considered Austen’s qualified-immunity defense.

The court ruled that Austen was entitled to qualified immunity as well. It reasoned that a reasonable officer could have believed that firing a less-lethal 40 mm. round at an inmate’s lower extremities, while that inmate was attacking another inmate, was a good-faith effort to restore order and protect the inmate being attacked. The court concluded that the law in June 2018 did not clearly tell a reasonable officer that Austen’s conduct was unlawful.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Austen’s motion for summary judgment on the excessive-force claim and also granted summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. The Clerk was directed to terminate pending motions and close the file.