Whitall v. Gutierrez
- Charles Breyer
- 3:18-cv-01376
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitall v. Gutierrez, Judge Breyer vacated an earlier partial summary judgment order and reinstated eight Event I state claims, excluding freedom of speech.
Raymond Richard Whitall’s state claims arising from the Event I prison excessive-force incident were reinstated, while his freedom-of-speech claim was not. The ruling also allowed Defendants to seek summary judgment again after discovery.
What happened
In Whitall v. Gutierrez, Raymond Richard Whitall asked the court to cancel an earlier order that had granted Defendants partial summary judgment. That order had barred his state-law claims based on an alleged February 28, 2017 prison use-of-force incident because the court believed he had not followed California’s Government Claims Act.
California later discovered that Whitall had followed that law. The court determined that eight state claims related to the incident could proceed: cruel and unusual punishment, battery, unnecessary force, dependent-adult abuse, battery against a dependent adult, dependent-adult endangerment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a claim under the Bane Civil Rights Act. The court did not reinstate the freedom-of-speech claim because it was not connected to the incident.
Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the motion to vacate, canceled the earlier summary judgment order, and reinstated the eight listed claims. The court did not decide whether those claims ultimately succeed and allowed Defendants to file another summary judgment motion after discovery ends.
The detailed version
- Whitall v. Gutierrez · No. 3:18-cv-01376
- Charles Breyer
- May 2, 2022
Background
Raymond Richard Whitall moved to vacate, meaning cancel, the court’s November 5, 2019 order granting Defendants partial summary judgment. That earlier order held that Whitall could not pursue state claims based on an alleged February 28, 2017 prison excessive-force incident, called “Event I,” because he had not complied with California’s Government Claims Act.
The State of California later discovered that Whitall had in fact complied with that law. The parties therefore agreed that the state claims that had been viable before the 2019 summary judgment order should be reinstated.
Claims at Issue
The court had previously dismissed claims arising from “Event II,” a series of events involving many defendants over nine months, because those claims could not be joined with the Event I claims. The court had allowed claims arising from Event I to continue.
Defendants argued that only a battery claim was viable. Whitall argued that eight additional state claims also concerned the Event I excessive-force allegations: cruel and unusual punishment; freedom of speech; use of unnecessary force; dependent-adult abuse; battery against a dependent adult; dependent-adult endangerment; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and a claim under the Bane Civil Rights Act.
Ruling
The court concluded that its earlier order had permitted all of those state claims except the freedom-of-speech claim, which lacked a connection to Event I. The court noted that some of the other claims might fail as a matter of law, but it did not decide that issue because the motion before it concerned only whether to vacate the prior order.
Judge Charles R. Breyer VACATED the prior summary judgment order and reinstated these eight claims:
- Cruel and unusual punishment;
- Battery;
- Use of unnecessary force;
- Dependent-adult abuse;
- Battery against a dependent adult;
- Dependent-adult endangerment;
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress; and
- The Bane Civil Rights Act.
The court permitted Defendants to file another summary judgment motion concerning these state claims after discovery closes.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.