Smith v. Madsen

Background

Anthony Smith, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officers H. Madsen, S. Maiorana, and V. Garcia. The case concerns an incident on November 20, 2019, when Madsen and Maiorana went to Smith’s cell to escort him to a meeting.

Smith alleged that Madsen said she would conduct a random search because he had previously filed administrative grievances against her. Smith requested that a supervisor be present and that Maiorana, rather than Madsen, search him. The parties disputed whether Smith resisted the search. Smith alleged that Maiorana forcefully pushed him into a wall, that Madsen handcuffed him tightly, and that Madsen searched him and found a bottle that later proved to contain morphine and codeine. Smith also alleged that Madsen and Maiorana filed false incident reports.

Smith claimed that Garcia was present but did nothing to stop the force. Garcia denied being present and said she was working in her office and was in a restroom when Madsen’s personal alarm sounded. Madsen and Maiorana also stated that Garcia was not present, and their incident reports did not mention her.

Only Garcia moved for summary judgment. Smith opposed the motion, and the court granted Smith’s motion for an extension of time to file that opposition.

Eighth Amendment claim

Smith alleged that Garcia violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to intervene when Madsen and Maiorana used excessive force. A correctional officer may be liable for failing to intervene if the officer had an opportunity to stop unconstitutional force by another officer.

Garcia argued that the evidence showed she was not present and that she was entitled to summary judgment on the claim and on qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect a government official from liability unless the official violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time.

The court rejected Garcia’s approach to the evidence. At summary judgment, the court may not weigh the evidence or decide which side’s account is stronger. It must accept a nonmoving party’s evidence as true and draw reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. Smith’s verified complaint and deposition contained sworn statements that Garcia was present. Garcia’s contrary statements and the absence of her name from the incident reports created a factual dispute rather than eliminating one. Because the dispute about Garcia’s presence was material to whether she had an opportunity to intervene, the court denied summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim and rejected Garcia’s qualified-immunity argument at this stage.

First Amendment retaliation claim

Smith also alleged that Garcia failed to intervene in and report the force in retaliation for his earlier administrative grievances against Madsen. The court explained that a prison-retaliation claim requires evidence that a state actor took adverse action because of protected conduct, that the action would chill a person of ordinary firmness from exercising that right, and that the action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

The court concluded that a reasonable factfinder could determine that Garcia failed to intervene or document the force because of Smith’s prior grievances. Smith alleged that the grievances were identified as the reason for the search and that Garcia watched the force without intervening. The court also found that a factfinder could consider Garcia’s claim that she was not present to be false and could find that the alleged conduct would discourage a person of ordinary firmness from filing future grievances. The court therefore denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim because material factual disputes remained.

Disposition

Judge Corley denied Garcia’s motion for summary judgment. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Illman and the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program for confidential mediation, which was to occur within 120 days of the order. The court stayed all further proceedings, except matters related to mediation, until the mediation proceedings were completed. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 20 and 27.