Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04213/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04213-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILL PALMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

A. LAMARQUE; et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 03-4213 SI (pr)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; ORDER

Will Palmer filed a pro se civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he

alleged two excessive force claims. The parties waived a jury trial, and the action came on for

trial before the court on January 31, 2006 through February 2, 2006. The court heard testimony,

received exhibits and heard argument at trial. The court now makes the following findings of

fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Force was used twice on Palmer on December 19, 2002 while he was incarcerated

at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"). 

2. SVSP is a level IV institution. Level IV is the highest general level of security in

California prisons, although security housing units may have more restrictive conditions.

Inmates at SVSP generally were allowed to move around the prison without being in handcuffs

and without being escorted by a prison guard.

3. Will Palmer was a level IV inmate and was serving an indeterminate life sentence

for convictions for several murders and robberies.

Case 3:03-cv-04213-SI Document 113 Filed 02/14/06 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

4. Defendants correctional officer ("C/O") Marcelino Valdez, sergeant Nathan

Walker, C/O Benjamin Gibbs, lieutenant Gregorio Salazar, C/O Raymond Lebedeff, and C/O

Stacy Henley were employed by the California Department of Corrections at SVSP. Valdez,

Walker, Salazar, Lebedeff and Henley were assigned to the investigative services unit ("ISU").

The ISU was working on collecting DNA samples from inmates that day. The ISU team

members did not personally extract blood or saliva samples, but instead brought inmates to a

phlebotomist who collected the samples.

5. Palmer was stopped in a hallway near the law library at about 10:00 a.m. on

December 19, 2002 by sergeant Walker and C/O Valdez, who wanted to bring him to the hobby

shop to have DNA samples collected from him. (The "hobby shop" moniker was left over from

a previous use of the room; on December 19, it was just a room available for various functions.)

 6. Sergeant Walker asked for Palmer's identification card. Palmer gave his

identification card to Walker, abruptly pulled the card back, and attempted to leave.

7. Sergeant Walker attempted to tell Palmer that they were there to take him for DNA

sampling. Walker knew that Palmer had previously refused to submit to the sampling.

8. Palmer failed to comply with orders from Valdez and Walker to stop. Palmer

walked into Valdez's outstretched arm three times, trying to walk away from them. After the

first and second time he walked into Valdez's arm, Palmer complied with orders to step back.

9. The third time Palmer walked into Valdez's outstretched arm, Valdez and Walker

decided to handcuff Palmer. Walker wanted to move Palmer to another area to avoid disrupting

a nearby class and decided to handcuff Palmer because of Palmer's irritated demeanor.

10. Walker ordered Palmer to turn around and put his hands behind his back to be

handcuffed. 

11. Palmer complied initially with the order, but when Walker put his hand on

Palmer's shoulder, Palmer swung around quickly and brought his hands up in front of his chest.

(Walker explained at trial that his practice of putting his hand on an inmate's shoulder was to

gain an advantage if an inmate tried to move. By having his hand on the inmate's shoulder,

Walker could more quickly sense movement by the inmate and therefore could obtain control

Case 3:03-cv-04213-SI Document 113 Filed 02/14/06 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

of the inmate sooner.)

12. Valdez perceived Palmer's movement to be a threat to his safety. Walker thought

he was going to get hit by Palmer.

13. Both Valdez and Walker grabbed Palmer and attempted to push him to the ground.

Palmer pushed back against their efforts to take him to the floor. 

14. The three men struggled – Palmer against Valdez and Walker – and moved down

the hall and around the corner as the struggle continued. Valdez and Walker pushed Palmer to

the floor in the hall.

15. A law librarian saw Palmer pull his identification card back from Walker. A

teacher who observed part of the struggle sounded an alarm.

16. Once Palmer was on the ground, he continued to struggle to resist efforts to put

handcuffs on him. 

17. C/O Gibbs was among the officers responding to the alarm. When Gibbs arrived,

Palmer was on the floor but still struggling by moving his body and feet. Gibbs put the

handcuffs on Palmer. Gibbs then escorted Palmer to the hobby shop. 

18. Walker, Valdez, and Gibbs did not grab Palmer's throat during the struggle.

Walker, Valdez and Gibbs did not strike, punch, or kick Palmer before or after handcuffing him.

19. The time between Palmer being pushed to the floor and being handcuffed was

about 10-15 seconds. 

20. When Palmer arrived at the hobby shop, he was medically evaluated by a nurse.

Thereafter, the phlebotomist collected DNA samples from him.

21. Lieutenant Salazar went to the hobby shop that day upon learning that Palmer had

complained of staff misconduct. Salazar attempted to interview Palmer, but Palmer refused and

said he would only talk to an outside investigator.

22. C/O Victor Hogg was acting as a C facility yard officer that day. He was not a part

of the ISU. Hogg went to the hobby shop. Salazar told Hogg the ISU was finished with Palmer

and asked Hogg to escort Palmer back to his building. 

Case 3:03-cv-04213-SI Document 113 Filed 02/14/06 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

23. Hogg replaced one pair of handcuffs with another pair on Palmer. The handcuffs

initially on Palmer were from Gibbs, who had put them on Palmer in the hallway. Hogg

replaced those handcuffs with his own handcuffs. Hogg gave the removed handcuffs to Salazar.

24. Hogg escorted Palmer to the C Building where Palmer was housed. When they

reached the outside front of the building, Hogg removed the handcuffs from Palmer. At the time,

there were other inmates standing outside the building who had been recalled from the yard and

were waiting to be pat-down searched before entering the building. Hogg instructed Palmer to

get in line with those inmates. Hogg then left without entering the building. 

25. At about 11:30 a.m. that day, defendants Valdez, Gibbs, Lebedeff, Salazar, and

Henley as well as the phlebotomist were gathered in an office in the C Building. Sergeant

Walker was not in or near the office at the time of the second incident. 

26. Inmates who had been in the yard were returning to their cells. Several inmates

walked into the building.

27. At the time, Valdez was reading paperwork in the office. He heard Palmer say,

"so you think you're a big man now," looked up and saw Palmer charging at him.

28. Palmer rushed into the office and at Valdez. Palmer grabbed Valdez, wrapped his

left arm around Valdez's shoulder/neck area and punched him three times.

29. Gibbs and Lebedeff saw Palmer hit Valdez. They grabbed at Palmer to pull him

away from Valdez and push him to the ground to handcuff him. Salazar also grabbed Palmer's

shirt trying to pull him away from Valdez. Valdez tried to push Palmer away from him.

30. Lebedeff, Gibbs and Palmer fell to the ground together. Once on the ground and

face-down, Palmer continued to kick and wiggle to avoid efforts by Gibbs and Lebedeff to pull

his arms from under his chest. When Palmer's hands were pulled out from under his chest,

Gibbs put the handcuffs on Palmer. Leg restraints also were put on Palmer.

31. When Palmer entered the office, he did so voluntarily. He was not ordered to enter

the office and was not pulled into the office. He was not escorted by a prison guard at the time

he entered the office. 

32. No defendant hit Palmer with a pepper spray can or any other kind of can.

Case 3:03-cv-04213-SI Document 113 Filed 02/14/06 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

33. Palmer was not purposely shoved into the desk head-first, although he may have

hit his head on the desk or other fixed objects as the group fell to the floor in the small office.

34. No defendant punched, kicked, or purposely struck Palmer during the second

incident before or after he was handcuffed. 

35. The struggle during the second incident took 30 seconds or less.

36. C/O Henley was in the office when Palmer entered but immediately turned her

attention to several inmates who were nearby in the rotunda because she was concerned that they

might be involved. She yelled at those inmates to get down on the floor and called to the control

booth for help. Henley had no physical contact with Palmer. 

37. After Palmer was put in handcuffs and leg restraints, he was taken for a medical

evaluation. The nurse wrote in her report that Palmer had swelling and an abrasion on the top

of his head, the left side of his neck appeared red, and Palmer complained of neck and rib pain.

Palmer also had a 1⁄2" cut on his head.

38. Palmer's punches caused redness and swelling in the area of Valdez's temple and

eye. 

39. Lebedeff sustained an abrasion to his chin during the struggle with Palmer.

40. The trial was largely about witness credibility, as the parties presented

contradictory versions of each incident. Palmer's felony convictions weigh negatively on his

credibility as a witness, although his felon status was not the sole or even primary factor in the

court's ultimate view of the relative credibility of the witnesses.

41. The Court finds defendants' version of the first incident credible and Palmer's

version largely not credible. Among the factors that persuade the Court of defendants' greater

credibility are the following: Uninvolved persons, i.e., a teacher and a law librarian, credibly

testified to events consistent with defendants' version of events, even though each saw only part

of the incident. Palmer's credibility was weak in part because the story he told at trial differed

from his earlier story in the complaint and summary judgment opposition: whereas he earlier

suggested he offered no resistance throughout the event, he testified at trial he "exploded after

the second time they punched me" and "was resisting being choked." Both these statements

Case 3:03-cv-04213-SI Document 113 Filed 02/14/06 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

were consistent with Palmer struggling with the guards rather than sustaining the one-sided

beating he described earlier and inmate Singleton described at trial.

42. The Court also finds defendants' version of the second incident credible and

Palmer's version not credible. Among the reasons the Court believes defendants' version over

that of Palmer are the following: C/O Hogg was credible in explaining how Palmer came to be

unhandcuffed before he entered the office. Defendants' descriptions of the incident were largely

consistent on details but not so well-matched in all details as to suggest that they were testifying

from a script. Additionally, the injuries to Valdez's temple/eye area were consistent with having

been punched and very inconsistent with Palmer's version of the events. Lebedeff's injuries and

Palmer's injuries both were minor and consistent with having been suffered during a scuffle.

Lebedeff's injuries were not consistent with having been suffered during a unilateral beating of

Palmer. Lastly, Palmer's credibility was weakened because the story he told at trial differed

from the story he told in his complaint and at the summary judgment stage: only at trial did he

state that the second incident started when he cleared his throat and tried to spit on Valdez.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The court has federal question jurisdiction to decide this action brought under the

authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

2. Venue is proper because the events giving rise to Palmer's claims occurred in

Monterey County, which is within the Northern District of California. 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(a),

1391(b). 

3. To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Palmer must show (1) that a right

secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the violation

was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S.

42, 48 (1988).

4. All defendants were acting under color of state law during both incidents.

Case 3:03-cv-04213-SI Document 113 Filed 02/14/06 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

5. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment is violated

when prison officials subject a prisoner to the use of excessive force. In evaluating such a claim,

"the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or

restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." Hudson v. McMillian, 503

U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). In making this determination, a court may evaluate the need for application

of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the extent of any

injury inflicted, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made

to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. at 7; LeMaire v. Maass, 12 F.3d 1444, 1454

(9th Cir. 1993).

6. A prison official who fails to intervene to prevent an Eighth Amendment violation

may be held liable under Section 1983. See Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436, 1442 (9th Cir.

1995).

7. The only defendants present in the first incident were Valdez, Walker and Gibbs.

During the first incident, Valdez, Walker and Gibbs did not use excessive force under the

circumstances. The force they used was only that necessary to subdue and handcuff Palmer who

had resisted lawful orders to stop and to submit to handcuffs.

8. During the first incident, Valdez, Walker and Gibbs did not act maliciously and

sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm to Palmer.

 9. During the second incident, Henley used no force on Palmer. 

10. During the second incident, no defendant used excessive force under the

circumstances. The force used by Valdez, Salazar, Gibbs, and Lebedeff was only that necessary

to end Palmer's physical attack on Valdez. The force next used by Gibbs and Lebedeff was only

that necessary to subdue and handcuff Palmer, who was resisting efforts to handcuff him. 

11. During the second incident, defendants did not act maliciously and sadistically for

the very purpose of causing harm. 

12. Because the force being used was not excessive in relation to the need for force,

no defendant has liability for failing to intervene to stop the use of force.

Case 3:03-cv-04213-SI Document 113 Filed 02/14/06 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

13. Palmer did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any defendant

violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment

on December 19, 2002. 

14. Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are immune "from

liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); see also Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201-02 (2001).

15. All defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions because their

conduct did not violate Palmer's constitutional rights.

ORDER

Having made the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court now orders that

plaintiff take nothing on his complaint. Judgment will be entered in defendants' favor and

against plaintiff. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2006 ______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04213-SI Document 113 Filed 02/14/06 Page 8 of 8