Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04241/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04241-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Forde
Defendant
Mayo
Defendant
Semyon Neys
Plaintiff
Ng
Defendant

Document Text:

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEMYON NEYS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAYO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-04241-JD 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 36

This is a civil rights case brought pro se by a former prisoner. Plaintiff presents a claim of 

excessive force by several guards while he was at San Francisco County Jail. He states that on 

March 15, 2012, he was forced down on the floor while handcuffed and assaulted with hands and 

feet by defendants, Sheriff’s Deputies Mayo, Forde, and Ng. Complaint at 3.1 

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on December 1, 2014. Plaintiff has not 

filed an opposition or otherwise communicated with the Court despite defendants filing an 

additional notice of plaintiff’s non-opposition on January 6, 2015.2 The Court will still look to the 

merits of the motion, which is granted.

DISCUSSION

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 

 

1

Plaintiff was a convicted federal prisoner at the time of this incident. Motion for Summary 

Judgment (“MSJ”), Ex. A. The complaint was filed on August 10, 2012.

2 Defendants indicate that plaintiff was released from custody on November 27, 2014. Reply at 2.

Case 3:12-cv-04241-JD Document 39 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 5
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 California

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 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.

B. Excessive Force

“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). Whenever prison 

officials stand accused of using excessive force in violation of the Eighth 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.

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; see also Spain 

v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 195 (9th Cir. 1979) (guards may use force only in proportion to need 

in each situation); see, e.g., Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1027 (9th Cir. 2013) (reversing 

Case 3:12-cv-04241-JD Document 39 Filed 03/09/15 Page 2 of 5
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 California

district court’s grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment because plaintiff’s evidence

that guards emptied two pepper-spray canisters at him when he put his hands on his cell’s food 

port opening raised a disputed issue of material fact regarding whether he posed a threat that 

justified defendants using pepper spray); Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 2002) 

(pepper spraying fighting inmates a second time after hearing coughing and gagging from prior 

spray was not malicious and sadistic for purpose of causing harm, where initial shot of spray had 

been blocked by inmates’ bodies).

C. Facts

The Court has reviewed defendants’ motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s verified 

complaint. Defendants do not recall any incident involving plaintiff on the day at issue. MSJ at 3. 

While the complaint contains only a few allegations, plaintiff provided some additional 

information when he was deposed by defendants on April 15, 2014.

In his deposition, plaintiff stated that he was awoken in the middle of the night by

defendant Mayo who told plaintiff he needed to move to a different bunk. MSJ at 4. Plaintiff 

alleged that Mayo handcuffed him and while the handcuffs were too tight, plaintiff did not ask for 

them to be loosened. Id. Plaintiff stated that several other deputies arrived and lifted his arms into 

the air while transporting him, but plaintiff was unable to provide additional details regarding how 

these deputies pulled his arms or touched him. Id. Plaintiff assumes Mayo was escorting him but 

does not know for sure. Id. 

Plaintiff stated that he was taken to an interview room, thrown onto the ground and 

punched and kicked. Id. Plaintiff was unable to provide details concerning who threw him onto

the floor. Id. at 5. Plaintiff stated that defendant Forde entered the room at some point and kicked 

him, but he does not recall where on his body he was kicked. Id. Then, more unidentified 

deputies came into the room and hit and kicked plaintiff for approximately thirty seconds. Id. 

Then Mayo and defendant Ng came into the room. Id. Plaintiff stated that Mayo pushed his torso

against the table and someone else, perhaps Ng, punched him in the ribs. Id. Plaintiff does not 

know how many times he was punched. Id. Then he was sitting in a chair and everyone left the 

room. Id. Mayo returned and took plaintiff back to his bunk. Id. Plaintiff stated he was bruised, 

Case 3:12-cv-04241-JD Document 39 Filed 03/09/15 Page 3 of 5
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 California

but never sought medical attention from jail medical staff and never requested anyone to document 

his injuries. MSJ at 4. 

The defendants do not recall any incident with plaintiff on March 15, 2012, but they state 

that they did not punch, kick, or assault plaintiff. Id. at 6.

D. Analysis

Defendants contend that there was no incident where they assaulted plaintiff. Plaintiff has 

not filed an opposition or otherwise communicated with the Court, but the Court has still reviewed 

his verified complaint in considering the motion for summary judgment. He stated in his 

complaint that he was injured while being handcuffed and was then assaulted by defendants who 

used their hands and feet. He provides very little additional information.

Defendants have met their burden in demonstrating that there is no genuine dispute as to 

any material fact. Plaintiff stated that the handcuffs caused him pain, but conceded that he did not 

request that the handcuffs be loosened. Plaintiff was also unable to answer many questions 

regarding the assault such as who was responsible or where he was struck. It is also undisputed 

that plaintiff never sought medical care and that there was no documentation of the injuries. 

Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to show a genuine issue of material fact, and the vague 

allegations from the complaint are insufficient to counter defendants’ evidence. Therefore, 

summary judgment is granted to defendants.3

CONCLUSION

1. The motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 36) is GRANTED. 

2. The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 9, 2015

______________________________________

James Donato

United States District Judge

 

3 Because the Court has not found a constitutional violation, the qualified immunity argument will 

not be addressed.

Case 3:12-cv-04241-JD Document 39 Filed 03/09/15 Page 4 of 5
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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SEMYON NEYS,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAYO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-04241-JD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 3/9/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Semyon Neys ID: 607720

Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility

550 6th Street

Oakland, CA 94607 

Dated: 3/9/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable JAMES DONATO

Case 3:12-cv-04241-JD Document 39 Filed 03/09/15 Page 5 of 5