Johnson v. Robertson

Background

Jeremiah Joseph Johnson brought a self-represented prisoner civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that correctional sergeant Powers and correctional officers Maldonado and Maylin used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The relevant events occurred on October 3, 2019, at Pelican Bay State Prison, where Johnson was incarcerated and the three defendants worked.

After Johnson refused to remove his shoes during a clothed body search because the ground was wet, officers escorted him inside and conducted an unclothed body search. The parties disputed what happened afterward. Johnson said that Powers ordered Maylin to “get him,” that Maylin struck him, and that Maldonado slammed him, placed him in a headlock, and used other force while Johnson was not resisting. Johnson alleged that he experienced pain, could not breathe, and suffered injuries, including a possible need for knee surgery.

The defendants said that Powers ordered Johnson to return to his cell and that Johnson refused. They said Maldonado took Johnson’s arm to escort him, Johnson pulled away and swung his arm toward Maldonado’s face, and Maylin and Maldonado took Johnson to the ground to stop the assault and restrain him. They also said Johnson resisted handcuffing and that medical photographs showed only a scratch on his elbow.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must not decide witness credibility or weigh competing evidence. Instead, it views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. A verified complaint may serve as evidence when it is based on the person’s knowledge and states facts that could be admitted at trial.

Excessive-force claim against Powers

The court explained that the Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from using force maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. Relevant considerations include the need for force, the amount of force used, the injury, the threat reasonably perceived by officials, and efforts to limit the force.

Johnson’s only allegation against Powers was that Powers ordered the other officers to “get him.” But during his deposition, Johnson admitted that he did not hear Powers make that statement, did not see Powers’s lips, and was speculating based on Maylin’s subsequent actions. The court held that Johnson had not shown a triable factual dispute based on personal knowledge or evidence beyond speculation.

The court therefore granted the motion as to Powers. Powers was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim.

Excessive-force claim against Maylin and Maldonado

The court denied the motion as to Maylin and Maldonado. The parties disputed whether Johnson attempted to strike Maldonado, whether Johnson resisted handcuffing, whether force was needed at all, and whether Maylin or Maldonado struck or slammed Johnson while taking him to the ground.

The court found these disputes material because, if Johnson’s evidence were believed, a jury could find that force was unnecessary or excessive. If the defendants’ evidence were believed, a jury could find that no excessive force occurred. Because resolving those disputes would require deciding credibility and weighing conflicting evidence, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Qualified immunity

Qualified immunity is a defense that can protect government officials from civil damages unless their conduct violated a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time. The defendants argued that reasonable officials could not have known that taking Johnson down to stop assaultive behavior was unlawful.

The court rejected summary judgment on this defense because the defendants’ argument assumed that their version of events was true. The same factual disputes concerning whether Johnson acted assaultively and whether the force went beyond a reasonable takedown also prevented summary judgment based on qualified immunity for Maylin and Maldonado.

Mediation and disposition

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Illman for mediation or settlement proceedings under the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. The proceedings were to occur within 120 days after the order was filed, and Johnson was required to attend and participate in the format selected by Magistrate Judge Illman.

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The motion was granted as to Powers and denied as to Maylin and Maldonado. The order disposed of Docket No. 31.