Lopez v. Thomas

Background

Andrew Lopez, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Correctional Officer D. C. Thomas used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment while responding to a fight at Pelican Bay State Prison.

On November 18, 2018, Lopez, inmate Ramirez, and inmate Raper began fighting. Officers gave multiple orders to stop fighting and get down, and smoke grenades were deployed, but the three inmates continued fighting. When approximately nine officers arrived, Thomas observed Lopez standing in a combative stance near Raper and not complying with orders to get down. Thomas struck Lopez once in the upper leg with a baton. Lopez then complied with another order to get down. Lopez stated that his leg hurt and had a large bruise for three months.

Administrative exhaustion

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires prisoners to complete available prison grievance procedures before filing a lawsuit about prison conditions. During the relevant period, California’s process required an inmate to pursue an appeal through three levels of review.

Lopez filed two appeals concerning the incident. One appeal, which he completed through the third level, challenged his rules-violation report and fighting conviction but did not mention excessive force or Thomas. The other appeal concerned the alleged nondisclosure of a confidential memorandum and was screened out before the final level of review. The court rejected Lopez’s argument that mentioning excessive force during an interview about the first appeal completed the process. It held that he failed to exhaust the excessive-force claim and had not shown that the available appeal process was unusable in his circumstances.

Merits

The court nevertheless addressed the excessive-force claim. Under the Eighth Amendment, the question is whether force was used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or instead maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.

The court found no genuine dispute about the material facts. Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Lopez, it concluded that Thomas used one baton strike while Lopez was still in a combative stance near the other inmate, after the inmates had continued fighting despite warnings and smoke. The court held that the evidence showed the force was used to restore discipline and prevent further injuries, not to maliciously or sadistically harm Lopez. It therefore granted summary judgment for Thomas on the merits.

The court also held that Thomas would be protected by qualified immunity even if the baton strike had violated the Constitution. In the court’s view, a reasonable officer would not have known that striking an inmate once in the leg was unlawful under these circumstances.

Disposition

The court granted Thomas’s motion for summary judgment, denied Lopez’s motions for summary judgment, granted Lopez’s motion to file a supplemental response, and reviewed that filing. The court dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the clerk to close the file.