Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05864/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05864-6/pdf.json

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

---

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ISAAC RIGGS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

R.T.C. GROUNDS, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 13-cv-05864-PJH 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; STAY AND 

REFERRAL TO MEDIATION 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 49, 51 

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a state prisoner. The case proceeds 

against defendant correctional officer Cahlander regarding an allegation of excessive 

force. Both parties have moved for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below 

the motions are denied. 

I. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

A. Standard of Review 

Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show 

that there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those which may 

affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 

(1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a 

reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. 

 The moving party for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying 

those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence 

of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986); 

Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). When 

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 68 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 8
2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

the moving party has met this burden of production, the nonmoving party must go beyond 

the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts showing that 

there is a genuine issue for trial. If the nonmoving party fails to produce enough evidence 

to show a genuine issue of material fact, the moving party wins. Id. 

 For purposes of summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the nonmoving party; if the evidence produced by the moving party 

conflicts with evidence produced by the nonmoving party, the court must assume the 

truth of the evidence submitted by the nonmoving party. See Leslie v. Grupo ICA, 198 

F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 1999). The court’s function on a summary judgment motion is 

not to make credibility determinations or weigh conflicting evidence with respect to a 

disputed material fact. See T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 

F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 

B. Facts 

The following facts are undisputed except where indicated otherwise: 

 At the relevant time plaintiff was an inmate incarcerated at Salinas Valley State 

Prison (“SVSP”). Complaint at 1. Defendant Cahlander was working as a correctional 

officer at SVSP. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant MSJ”), 

Cahlander Decl. ¶ 2. On February 7, 2012, Cahlander was helping other officers run the 

shower program in plaintiff’s housing area. Id. Cahlander was on the lower floor of the 

facility area near the staff podium in the center of the dayroom. Id. The podium is a 

raised open desk area approximately six-feet wide, where officers monitor and interact 

with inmates. Id. The podium is out-of-bounds to inmates and is marked by painted lines 

on the floor surrounding the podium area. Id. 

 Plaintiff’s cell door was opened so that plaintiff could take a shower. Defendant 

MSJ, Cahlander Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff exited his cell and began yelling profanities at a nondefendant correctional officer. Id. Cahlander ordered plaintiff to enter the lower shower 

cell and close the door behind him, but plaintiff turned towards Cahlander and began 

yelling profanities at him. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff then approached the end of the podium area 

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 68 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 8
3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

and the out-of-bounds line. Id.; Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary Judgment, Docket No. 

55, (“Opposition”) at 5. 

Cahlander’s Facts 

 Defendant states the following occurred: 

 Plaintiff crossed the out-of-bounds line, entered the restricted area, opened a desk 

drawer, and retrieved two shaving razors. Defendant MSJ, Cahlander Decl. ¶ 4. Due to 

plaintiff’s yelling of profanities and possession of the razors, Cahlander ordered him to 

put the razors down, at which point plaintiff yelled more profanities. Id. ¶ 5. Cahlander 

drew his pepper spray canister and ordered plaintiff to get down, but plaintiff assumed a 

boxer’s stance while holding the two razors and took a step towards Cahlander. Id. 

 Cahlander administered a short burst from the pepper spray canister at plaintiff’s 

upper body. Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff turned away, dropped the razors and moved away five to 

seven feet. Id. Cahlander ordered plaintiff to assume the prone position on the floor. 

Plaintiff complied and was placed in hand restraints behind his back. Id. 

 While being escorted away, plaintiff yelled offensive and aggressive statements. 

Defendant MSJ, Lewis Decl., Ex. B at DEF 19. Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to 

decontaminate from the pepper spray. Id. at 16, 18. Medical staff noted the effects of 

pepper spray to plaintiff’s chest and face. Id. at 3, 22. Plaintiff stated that he had injuries 

all over his body but refused to be treated by medical staff. Id. at 22. Medical staff noted 

that there were no injuries. Id. 

Plaintiff’s Facts 

 Plaintiff disputes many of Cahlander’s factual assertions and states the following 

occurred: 

Plaintiff maintains that he never crossed the out-of-bounds line and never walked 

towards Cahlander holding up the razors. Reply (Docket No. 57) at 2. He carried over 

two old razors and walked near the podium in order to trade them for new razors. 

Opposition at 2. Cahlander told plaintiff he could not trade them, at which point plaintiff 

bent over to throw the old razors into a trash can. Id. It was at that point that Cahlander 

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 68 Filed 11/19/15 Page 3 of 8
4 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

sprayed plaintiff with pepper spray and then kicked and hit him with what felt like a 

flashlight. Id. Plaintiff states he was complying with instructions and getting on the 

ground when he was assaulted. Id. at 3. 

Plaintiff disputes that he did not suffer any injuries. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“Plaintiff MSJ”), at 3. Plaintiff does not describe his injuries and points to an 

exhibit from the prison medical staff which quotes plaintiff as stating he had injuries all 

over his body. Plaintiff MSJ, Ex. C at 29 of 58. The exhibit reflects that plaintiff was 

assessed by medical staff and no injury was noted. Id.

1

C. Analysis 

Excessive Force Legal Standard 

The treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is 

confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 

U.S. 25, 31 (1993). "After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of 

pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment." 

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319 (1986) (omission in original) (internal quotation 

marks omitted). A prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements 

are met: (1) the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious, Farmer v. 

Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298 (1991)), 

and (2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind, i.e., the 

offending conduct was wanton, id. (citing Wilson, 501 U.S. at 302-03); LeMaire v. Maass, 

12 F.3d 1444, 1451 (9th Cir. 1993). 

 What is required to establish an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain varies 

according to the nature of the alleged constitutional violation. Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320. 

When prison officials stand accused of using excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

 

1 Plaintiff also includes a declaration from another inmate who witnessed the incident. 

Plaintiff MSJ, Ex. B at 22 of 58. The other inmate states that plaintiff was at the podium 

removing a razor from the desk and Cahlander pepper sprayed plaintiff while plaintiff was 

moving away from defendant. The other inmate states plaintiff never approached 

Cahlander, but makes no mention of plaintiff being kicked or hit while on the ground. Id.

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 68 Filed 11/19/15 Page 4 of 8
5 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Amendment, the deliberate indifference standard is inappropriate. Hudson v. McMillian, 

503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). Instead, 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. Id. at 6-7; Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21; Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 912-13 

(9th Cir. 2001) (applying "malicious and sadistic" standard to claim that prison guards 

used excessive force when attempting to quell a prison riot, but applying "deliberate 

indifference" standard to claim that guards failed to act on rumors of violence to prevent 

the riot). 

 In determining whether the use of force was for the purpose of maintaining or 

restoring discipline, or for the malicious and sadistic purpose of causing harm, 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. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. 

 A significant injury is not a threshold requirement for stating an excessive force 

claim. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. Whether the alleged wrongdoing is objectively harmful 

enough to establish a constitutional violation is contextual and responsive to 

contemporary standards of decency. Id. at 8 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 

(1976)). This is not to say that the "absence of serious injury" is not relevant to the 

Eighth Amendment inquiry. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. The extent of injury suffered by an 

inmate is one factor that may suggest whether the use of force could possibly have been 

thought necessary in a particular situation. Id. 

Discussion 

In this case, material facts remain in dispute regarding the incident and it is 

decisive for the outcome of the case whether plaintiff's version of the facts is correct or 

defendant’s version is accurate. If plaintiff was not obeying orders and approached 

Cahlander while holding razors in a threatening manner, then no constitutional violation 

occurred when defendant briefly pepper sprayed plaintiff. Yet, if Cahlander pepper 

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 68 Filed 11/19/15 Page 5 of 8
6 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

sprayed plaintiff for no reason, and then kicked and hit him with a flashlight while plaintiff 

was on the ground and not resisting, then a jury could find that these actions violated the 

Eighth Amendment. Even if plaintiff approached Cahlander with the razors and 

Cahlander pepper sprayed him, there still could be a constitutional violation if Cahlander 

kicked and hit plaintiff with a flashlight while plaintiff was on the ground and complying 

with instructions.2

Cahlander also argues that there is no evidence plaintiff suffered any injury. While 

the evidence casts doubt that plaintiff suffered any injury other than being pepper 

sprayed and plaintiff’s allegations that he suffered injuries are not fully supported by the 

evidence, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving 

party. Moreover, minor injuries will not defeat an excessive force claim. Wilkins v. 

Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34, 38 (2010) (inmate who is gratuitously beaten by guards does not 

lose his ability to pursue an excessive force claim merely because he has the good 

fortune to escape without serious injury). 

Cahlander also argues that even though there are factual disputes, summary 

judgment should still be granted. Cahlander contends that plaintiff’s factual statement is 

irrelevant, contradicted by the record, and silent regarding certain material facts. While 

there is some support for Cahlander’s contentions, plaintiff’s statement of facts which the 

court must liberally construe, is not entirely incredible. See Thomas v. Ponder, 611 F.3d 

1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2010). While different versions of plaintiff’s facts are somewhat 

contradictory, he still alleges that he was pepper sprayed and beaten and he never 

resisted. 

 In Lolli v. County of Orange, 351 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2003), the district court granted 

summary judgment in favor of defendants regarding a Fourth Amendment excessive 

force claim, and the Ninth Circuit reversed, noting that genuine issues of material fact 

 

2

 Even if plaintiff’s witness declaration is accurate and plaintiff went to the podium and 

retrieved new razors which is not allowed, defendant could be liable for kicking and hitting 

plaintiff while he was on the ground. 

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 68 Filed 11/19/15 Page 6 of 8
7 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

existed which precluded summary judgment. Id. at 412. The Ninth Circuit noted the 

discrepancies between the accounts of the parties and that one side’s “version of the 

story, unsurprisingly, is very different.” Id. Looking at the evidence in the light most 

favorable to plaintiff, the Ninth Circuit concluded that he had met his burden in opposing 

summary judgment. Id. at 417. Similarly, in looking at plaintiff’s evidence in this case, he 

has met his burden and a jury could conclude there was an Eighth Amendment violation. 

Cahlander’s motion for summary judgment is therefore denied. Because there are 

disputed facts, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is also denied. 

D. Qualified Immunity 

The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . 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). A court considering a claim of qualified immunity 

must determine (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual 

constitutional right and (2) whether such right was clearly established such that it would 

be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he 

confronted. Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232, 236 (2009) (overruling requirement 

in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), that court ruling on qualified immunity claim 

consider first prong of test before addressing second prong). The court may exercise its 

discretion in deciding which prong to address first. Id. 

 Plaintiff has adequately alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional 

right, in that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would not have believed that it 

was lawful to pepper spray plaintiff when he was complying with commands and then kick 

and hit him with a flashlight while he on the ground and not resisting. Defendant is 

therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. 

II. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 

In light of the court's denial of this motion, this case shall be referred to Magistrate 

Judge Vadas for settlement proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Settlement 

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 68 Filed 11/19/15 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

Pro

da

set

fiv

pro

III. 

49

pu

Jud

is S

Da

ogram. The

te this orde

ttlement pro

ve days afte

oceedings. 

CONC

1. Pla

, 51) are D

2. The

rsuant to th

dge Vadas 

STAYED p

IT IS S

ated: Novem

e proceedin

er is filed. M

oceeding w

er the conc

LUSION 

intiff’s motio

ENIED. 

e case is re

he Pro Se P

in the Eure

ending the 

SO ORDER

mber 18, 20

ngs will take

Magistrate J

with all intere

lusion of th

on and defe

ferred to M

Prisoner Se

eka Division

settlement

RED. 

015 

8

e place with

Judge Vada

ested partie

e proceedin

endant’s m

agistrate Ju

ettlement Pr

n, a copy of

 proceeding

hin one hu

as will coor

es and/or th

ngs, file wit

otion for su

udge Vada

rogram. Th

f this order.

gs. 

__

PH

Un

undred and

rdinate a tim

heir represe

th the court

ummary jud

s for settlem

he clerk will

. In view of

__________

HYLLIS J. H

nited States

d twenty da

me and date

entatives a

t a report of

dgment (Do

ment proce

l send to M

f the referra

_________

HAMILTON

s District Ju

ays of the 

e for a 

nd, within 

f the 

cket Nos. 

eedings 

agistrate 

al, this case

______

N

udge 

e

Case 4:13-cv-05864-PJH Document 68 Filed 11/19/15 Page 8 of 8