T he H o no rable R o b ert D

. Sac k, Senior C i rcui t Jud ge f o r t he U

. S. Co urt *

o f A p p eal s f

o r t he Se co nd C i rcui t , s i t t i ng by desi gnat i o n. F OR P UB LIC AT ION



### U N I TED STA TES C O U R T O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT

E DW AR D T ER R AN F U RNA CE ,

Plaintif f-Appellant ,

v.

P A U L S UL L I VAN , CO; D. M ORAL ES , CO; J. S OT O , CO, sued in their off icial
and ind ivi du a l c a

pa c iti e s, Defendants-A

ppellees

. No. 10-15961

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-04441- MMC

OPI NI ON

Appea l from the United States District Court fo r t he No rt he rn Di str ic t of

Ca lif or nia Maxi ne M. Chesney , Senior District J udg e, Presiding

Argued and Submitted No ve mbe r 6 , 2 01 2— San F ra nc isc o, Ca lif

or nia Filed January

17, 2013

Be fore : Robert D. Sack, Ronald M. Gould, *

and Mil an D . Sm ith , Jr. , Ci rc uit Judg e s. Opinion by

J udg e Milan D. Smith, J r.F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

2

T hi s s ummary cons t i t ut es no part o f the o pi ni on of

t he cour t

. I t ha s ** b een p repa red b y co urt s t af f f o r t he co nveni ence o f

t he read er. SUMMAR

Y **

P risoner Civil Rights The pa nel re verse d in part and a ffirme d in part the district court’s s ummary

judgme nt in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action br ou g ht by a pr iso n inm a te wh o a lle g e d that pr ison of fi c ia ls vio late d h is E ig hth Am e ndme nt ri g hts by sp ra ying him wi th
an ex cess ive q

ua nti ty of pe pp e r s pr ay , a

nd vio late d h is F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt r ights wh e n th e y de nie d h im a veg etar ian bre akfa st. The pa nel re verse d the district court’s summar y judgme nt in favor of prison officia ls on plaintiff’s Eig hth Amendment
c la im, de te rm ini ngthat th e dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to dr aw a ll inf e r e n c e s in p la inti f

f ’ s f av o r w h e n r e s o lv in g th e is s ue of qu a lif ie d immun ity

. Th e pa

ne l c on c lud e d that g ive n the fa c ts, as alleg ed by

plaintiff, a sig nificant amount of for ce w as employ ed without signific ant provoc ation from plaintiff or
war ning f rom the off

icer s. The panel rema

nded on this iss ue. The pa nel affirmed the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

prison officia ls with respec t to plaintiff’ s Equal Protection chal l enge. T he pane l held that the district
c ourt pr op e rl y c on c lud e d th a t pla int if

f fa ile d to r a ise a

tr ia ble iss ue of fa c t w ithre sp e c t to wh e the r t he of fi c e rs int e nti on a lly
re fu se d to pro vid e him

wi th a re lig iou s b re a kf

a st tra y wh ile pr ov idi ngthe same to oth e r i nmate s w ho we re sim ila rl y situated



### .F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 3

CO UN SEL

Victoria L . Weatherf

ord (a rgued) a nd Daniel H. Bookin, O’Melve ny

& Myers L L P, Sa n Fr ancisco, California, for Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt.

Jose Z e lid on -Z e peda (a

rgue d) , D e puty

Attor ne y Ge ne ra l, State of Ca lif or nia , f or De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s.

OP IN ION

M. SMI TH, Circuit J udg e: Plaintiff-Appellant Edwa rd Terran Furna ce a

ppeals fr om the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f summa

ry jud g me nt in D e fe nd ants

Ap pe lle e s’ fa

vo r. F ur

na c e a lle g e s th a t th e De fe nd ants

Appellee s, who are corr ectional of fice rs at the pr ison where Fur nace was inca

rce rate d at th e t i m e of the alleg ed
occur renc e, violated his Eig hth Amendment ri g hts by
s p r ayi n g h i mw i t hane x c e s s i v e q u an t i t y o f p e p p e r s p r a y. F ur na c e a lso a lle g e s that his F ourt e e nth Am e ndment ri g hts
wer e disreg arde d when the of fice rs denied h i m a veg etar ian br e akf a st.

We reve rse and rema

nd on Fur nace ’s Eig hth Amendment claim, bec ause the district c ourt failed to draw a ll inferenc es in Furna ce’ s favor wh en re solving the issue of qualified immunit y in a summary

judgme nt, but we affirm the district court’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt with respec t to Furna ce’ s Equal Protection cha lleng e.F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

4

T he dist rict cour t ’ s order gr ant i ng s ummary j udgment , wh i ch ci t es 1 Furnace ’ s est i m at e o f

t he f o o d po rt ’ s si ze, de scr i b es t he f o o d po rt as b ei ng ei ght een i nches wi d e and s even o r ei ght i nches hi gh. R eco rd p ho t o graphs

o f t h e fo o d p o rt, h o w e v e r, c o n firm o u r d e sc rip tio n o f t h e fo o d p o rt’s d i m en si o ns. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND Duringthe time period re levant to this case, F urnac e wa s an i nmate at Salinas Va lley State Prison (SVSP ). He pr a c tic e s the She ta

ut Ne te r re lig ion , wh ic h re qu ir e s its advanc ed pra ctitioners to be veg etar ians. As a r esult, Furna ce was e ntitled to rece ive veg etar ian meals, a nd he had r ece ived them without incident at SVSP for ove r a year

. Meals in Fur

nace ’s ce ll block were deli v ered throug h a fo od /ha nd c uf f por t (f oo d por t) , a re c tangula

r slo t in e a c h ja il cell door c overe d by

a metal f lap that can be opene d from the outside by removing a padlock. The food por t is about twelve inc he s w ide and

six in c he s ta ll. 1
Oper ation Procedur e 29 (O P 2 9 ) descr ibes SVSP ’s po lic ie s r e g ard inginm a te s and the fo od po rt , a s f oll ow s:

I nmate s w ho take c ontr ol o f f oo d/c uf f p or ts
cre ate a serious i mmediate safety conce rn for
s t aff and other

inmates and mandates suspension of the prog ramming of the other inmates housed in the unit. . .

. I t is imperative that the food/cuff port be secur ed i n short order to enable inmate s to continue to rec eive
se rv ic e s.F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 5

OP 29 also presc ribes how officer s are to rea ct when inmate s int e rf e re wi th a fo od po rt :

I f duringro u t ine duties, corr ectional of fice rs encounte r an inmat e who refuses to allow staff to c lose and lock h i s food/cuff port, the of fi c e rs wi ll v e rb a lly ord e r t he inm a te to relinquish control of the fo o d p ort and a llow
s t af f to secur e it. The office r shall issue a
warn ing that c he mic a l a g e nts wi ll b e us e d if h e d o e s n o tc o mp l y.

I f the inmate r efuse s t o relinqui sh control of the food port, despite the wa rning , the offic er is a uth or ize d to a dmi nis te r c hemic a l a g e nts
a g a ins t th e inm a te to s e c ur e the fo od po rt

. OP 29 also directs that if c hemical agents are employ ed ag ainst an inmate, he alth car e staff at SVSP are to allow the prisoner to de contaminate.

D e f e n d an t s
- Ap p e l l e e s , D

. R

. M o r a l e s , P

. S u l l i v an , an d J. Soto (collec tively , the offic ers,) wer e on duty the morning of the e ve nts g ivi ngri se to t his lit ig a tio n, and

we re re sp on sib le fo r d e liv e ri ngbr e akf

a st t o th e inm a te s in

Furn ace’ s c e ll block. Neither of the off

icer s was re g ularly

assig ned to work in F ur na c e ’s c e ll b loc k, no r w a s e ith e r of the m fa mil iar w ith F u r n a c e

. M o r a l e s w a s a s s i g n e d t o d i s t r i b u t e b r e a k f

a s tt r ays to Furna ce a

nd his c ell mate on the rele vant morning , and he approa ched F urnac e’s c ell car rying a larg e platter with two or thr e e me a l tr ay s o n it

. A c c o u n t s o f

w h a th a p p e n e d n e x td i v e r g e dr a m a t i c a l l y. We b e g in w it hF u r n a c e ’ s a c c o u n t. F u r

n a c e c la im s h e hear dF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

6

T he reco rd d o es not co nt ai n de t ai l s regardi ng t he She t aut N et ur 2

r el i gi on, t houg h Fu r nac e’ s bri ef on appeal s t at es t hat i t i s en t i r el y di s t i nct f r om I s l a m. Morales say

something de rog atory , which he c ontends was something to the eff

ect of, “What’s up with all these fuc kin’ M u s l i m s o v e r

h e r e ?” As Mo ra le s app ro a c he d F ur na c e ’s c e ll, 2 he held the food tray

with one hand, a

nd opened the food port with the other. Correctional staff rely on signs posted on the doors of prison cells to a scer tain whether an inmate has bee n approve d to rec eive a v egeta rian mea l. Morales c laims that he did not see suc h a sig n on Fur nace ’s ce ll door. I nmates
a l s o k e e p a f

o r m c a l l e d a “ c h r o n o ” t h a t l i s t s the ir authorization to rece ive a veg etar ian meal. F urnac e conc edes that he did no t sh ow the of fi c e rs his c hr on o, tho ug h h e ha d it in h is c e ll at th e tim e of

the inc ide nt.
Whe n M orales op e ne d th e fo od po rt on F ur na c e ’s c e ll, Fur nace reque sted two veg etar ian meals. Morales said, “You g uy s ain’t veg etar ian,” c losed the food por t, and s tepped out of vie w t o s pe ak w ithSot o. Mo ra le s the n r e tur ne d to the c e ll, opened the food port, and told Fur nace that Soto had advised him that F ur na c e and his c e ll m a te we re not ent itl e d to veg etar ian tray s. Morales ne x t told Furnac e to either acc ept the tr ay s, or

he wo uld

mark bo th F ur nace and his c e ll m a te do wn a s h avin g re fu se d th e m.

F ur na c e the n atte mpt e d to a sk Soto to c ome to t he c e ll door. He states that he attempted to do so by squatting down and putting his fing ertips on the bottom portion of the open food port to balanc e himself, from which position he intended to c a ll to Sot o thr ou g h the fo od po rt

. He did no t ex ten d h is hand or a rm outside the food port. W ithout warning , Morales spray ed F urnac e with pe pper spray . Fur nace put his hand upF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 7

to block the peppe r spra

y , and g rabbed t h e fo od port in the proce ss. Sull ivan saw that Morales wa s pepper spray ing F ur na c e , c ame ov er, and

a lso be g an p e pp e r s pr aying him

. Mo ra le s d isc ha

rg e d h is c an of p e pp e r s pr ay a t F ur na c e un til it was empty . Fur

nace tes t i fi ed that he wa s pepper spray ed for “ may be a minute,” and it was his per ception that the office rs unloaded the conte n ts of two canister s of peppe r sp ra y on him

. Fur n a c e w a s s tr

u c k b y p e p p e r s p r ay in th e lo w e r p art of his f ace , on his chest, on his stomach, and on his g roin are a. The pe pper spr ay

cause d his ski n to blist er a nd burn. He
e x p e r i e n c e d

a b u r n i n g s e n s a t i o nf

o r t h r e e o r f o u r d ays following the i ncident. Af ter the inc ident, he also de veloped
a ra sh in his g roin are a that he believes may have be en ca

used b y t h e p e p p e r

s p r ay.
The off icer s’ ver sion of the eve nts differs ma rkedly from Furnace ’s. Morale s claims that when he returne d from
c on fe rr ingwi th S oto a

bo ut whe the r F urnace w a s e nti tle d to
rec eive a veg etar ian meal, F urnac e ab rupt ly forc ed the f

ood port open a

nd y elled, “f

uck you!” Mor ales cl ai m s that he ins tr uc te d F ur na c e to r e mov e his hands fr om t he fo od po rt , and that he tol d F ur

na c e he ha d ten s econ ds to c omp ly wi th his direct orde r. He aver s that Fu rnac e ag ain said, “f uck y o u , ” a n d ex h i b i t ed“a naggr es s i v e d et erm i n at i o n n o t t o l et go of the food por

t.” Morale s say s t h at he discha rg ed a one

secon d b la st o f p e pp e r s pr ay a t F ur na c e in o rd e r t o g a in h is compliance , and then c ease d spray ing be cause his canister
was e mpty . S ee i n g Morales pe pper spr aying F urnac e, Sulli van ra

n over to F urnace’ s cell, and beg an discha rg ing pepper spray on Fur nace from his own canister. Sullivan claims he discha

rg ed one b l as t o f peppe r spra y on Fur nace ,F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

8

and that Fur

nace eventua lly withdrew his ha nds from the f

ood po rt a ft e r S ull iva

n s pr ay e d h im.

I t is undisput ed that af

ter Mora les and Sullivan s t o p p ed sp ra yingF ur na c e , F ur na ce was a llo we d to de c on tamin ate in his cell. He did not re ce ive a ve g etar ian bre akfa st that
m o rn i n g.
Fur nace b ro u ght severa l claims ag ainst the offic ers, two of which a

re at i s s u e on appeal. F irst, he claimed that Morales a

nd Sulli van used e x ces s i v e for ce in the w ay they
us e d th e pe pp e r sp ra

y a g a ins t him , in vio latio n of the Ei g hth Amendment. Second, he claimed th at t he off icer s violated his equal protec t i o n rig hts by not providing him with a veg etar ian bre akfa st, even thoug h they provi ded veg etar ian
me a ls t o o the r s imi larl y

sit uate d inmate s.
Th e of fi c e rs mov e d f

or summa

ry jud g me nt o n b oth claims, which the district c ourt g rante d. Fur nace appea ls that order , claiming that the district court improperly resolved disputed issues of materia l fac t in the office rs’ fa vor.
STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW

We r eview the district c ourt’s g rant of summary judgme nt and its qualified immunity deter minations de novo. See Torre s v . Ci ty of M ad e ra , 6 4 8 F. 3 d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011). “Summary judgme nt is appropr iate only if, taking the evidenc e and a ll reasona

ble infer ence s drawn there from in the light most favor able to the n o n -m oving pa rty , there are no g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t and the mov ing part y

is entitled to judgment a s a m at ter of la w.” Id . I f, as to any g ive n mate ri a l f

a c t, e vidence pr od

uc e d b y the mov ingpa

rt y (the off icer s, in this case) c onflicts with evidenc e produc ed byF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 9

T he Sup rem e C o urt ha s hel d that c o urt s have d i scr et i o n to d et erm i ne 3 the se q u e n c e o f t h is inq u iry. See P ears on v

. Cal l ahan , 555 U

. S. 223, 236 (20 0 9 ). the no nmo vin g pa

rt y (F ur na c e , in t his c a se ), we mus t a ssume the tr utho f t h e e v i d e n c e s e tf

o rt hb y t h e n o n m o v i n g p art y with respec t to that material fa ct. Se e Lesl ie v. Gr up o I CA , 19 8 F .3 d 1 15 2, 11 57 –5 8 ( 9th Cir . 1 99 9) . With r e spect to qualified immunity

deter mi n a ti o n s o n s ummary judgme nt, we assess whe ther the c ontours of F urnac e’s Eighth Amendme nt rig ht were clea

rly established with re spect to the a lleg ed misconduct. Sa uc ie r v . Ka tz , 533 U.S. 194, 201–02 (2001). 3 I f t he ri g ht w a s c le arl y

e sta bli sh e d, we the n a sk : “ Take n in the light most favorab l e to t he par ty asser ting the injury , do th e fac ts alleg ed show the of fice r’s c onduct violated a constitutional right? ” Id.

DI SCU SSIO N A. Disputed Fac ts

The district cour

t corre ctly

deter min ed that there wer e triable issues of material fa ct conc erni n g whether Morales
war ned F urn ac e to re move his hands from the f ood port befor e peppe r spra

ying him, and whether

Fur nace posed such a thre at that Morale s and Sulli van wer e justified in employing pe pp e r s pr ay

a g a ins t hi m.
The c ourt also conc luded, howeve r, that F urnac e did not raise a triable issue of materia l fac t with respe ct t o the amount of peppe r spra

y that Morales a

n d S u l l ivan used on F urnac e, even thoug h the quantity

of pepper spra

y discharg ed by

the office rs is unquestionably mat er ial, beca

use the amount of forc e used is ce ntral to a

claim sounding in the alleg ed use ofF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

10

excessive forc e. See Anderson v. Li berty Lobby, Inc

. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986) (“ Only disputes over facts that might af fec t the outcome of the suit unde r the g overninglaw will properly

prec lude the entr

y of summary

judgme nt.”).

Fur nace alleg ed that both Morale s and Sullivan discharg ed their c anisters of pe pper spr ay on h i m u ntil each canister was e mpty . The c ourt conc luded that Fur nace had not presente d any

evidenc e to s upport this claim. I nstead, the court c redited the office rs’ stateme nts that Morales discharg ed a one -sec ond burst of pepper spray at Furnac e and then stopped bec ause his ca nister lacke d pressure , and that Sulli van, see ing Mor ales strug g l i n g with his pepper spra y canister , fired one burst of peppe r s p ray at Fur nace , but stopped as soon as Furnac e removed hi s hands from the f ood po rt

. Fur nace may

have la cked a

foundation to determine prec isely how many

canister s of peppe r spray , if any , the of fi c e rs de ple te d, but it do e s no t fo llo w that the c ourt sh ou ld there fore automatically

adopt the offi ce rs’ ve rsion of how much peppe r s p ra y

they used. See Clem ent v. Gom ez , 298 F.3d 898, 902 & n.2 (9th Cir. 200 2 ) (a cce pting on
summa ry jud g me nt t

he no nmo va

nts ’ v e r s i o n

o f e ve nts de sp ite the “c onsiderable c o n f

u s io n ” r e g a

r d in g the number, se quence , and duration of bursts of pepper spray ). As the di strict court noted, Fur

nace testified th at he was peppe r spra y ed for “may be a minute,” and that he believed that office rs Sullivan and Morales both e mptied the ir entire canister s o f pepper sp ra y on him

. We are unable to re concile the office rs’ testimony that they employ ed two quick blasts of pe pper spr ay at Fur nace with Furna ce’ s own testimony that he was pepper

spray ed forF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 11

up to a f u ll mi nu te , e s p e c ia ll y

g iv e nth e e xte n t o f

F u r n a ce’ s a lle g e d in jur ie s. Th e dis c re pa

nc y be tw e e n th e se a c c ounts is too g re a t to be c a

pa ble of re so lut ion

on summa ry jud g ment

. Acc or d in g ly , a s it mu s t d o w h e n r u li n g o n a mo ti o n for summary judgme nt, the district court should have a dop ted F ur na c e ’s ver sio n o f t

he e ve nts —th a t he wa s su bje c t to repe ated bur sts of pepper spray for about a minute—when deter mining whe ther the of

fice rs wer e entitled to qualified immun ity . H a d it do ne so , a s mor e fu lly dis c us se d b e low , it s analy sis o f wh ether

the offic ers we re e ntitled to qualified immunit y at the summary

judgmen t s t ag e of the litigation, would have be en af

fec ted.

Ad dit ion a lly , th ou g h the dis tr ic t court fo un d that a tr ia ble issue of materia l f

act rema ined as to whether Fur nace posed a t h re at , it premised its awar d of qualified immunity to the office rs on its determination that M o ra les could have mistakenly , but rea sonably , perc eived tha t Fu rnac e posed a threat “when [he] held open the f ood port. ” Furnace denies that he held the f

ood port open; he c l ai m s i nstead that he rested his fing ers on the a lrea dy -open fo o d p o rt for ba lance

. This fac tual char acte rization is s ubtle, b u t i s releva nt to the question of whether

Morales c ould have r easona bly believed that Fur nace posed a t h re at to the safe ty and sec urity

of the instit ution. Moreover , beca use t h e d eter

mination was made
on a mot ion fo r summa

ry jud g me nt, the de te rm inatio n s ho uld have be en made by

draw ing a ll inferenc es in Fur nace ’s favor. B. Qu alif

ied Im m uni ty

F urnac e a lle g e s th a t th e of fi c e rs vio late d h is E ig hth Amendment rig ht to be fre e fr om crue l and unusual punishment by using excessive forc e ag ainst him whe n they pe pp e r s pr ay e d h im. F or purp os e s o f a

qu a lif ie d im mun ityF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

12 analy s is , th e o f

f ic e r s w e r e c le ar ly

o nn o ti c e o f

F u r n a c e ’s Eig hth Amendment rig hts in thi s ca s e. See H arlow v. Fi tzge ra ld , 4 57 U. S. 800 , 818 (1 98 2) (q ua lif ie d im mun ity

is
a pp ro pr iate when “ c on du c t do e s n ot v iol a te c le arl y established statutory

or co n stitut ional rig hts of which a
re a so na ble pe rson

wo uld have kn ow n. ” ). F ir st a nd mos t g e n e r a ll y , th e “ s e tt le d r

u le [i s ] th a t th e u n n e c e s sary and wanton inf

l i ct i on of pain . . . c onstitut es cr uel and unusua l punishment forbidden by the Eigh t h Amendment.” Hudson v. Mc Millian , 503 U.S. 1, 5 (1992) (quotations omi tted). Second,“[p]rison reg ulations gove rning the co nduct of
corr ectional of

fice rs ar e also relevant in deter mining whe ther an inm ate’ s rig ht was cle arly established.” Treats v. Morgan , 3 0 8 F. 3 d 8 6 8 , 8 7 5 (8 t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) ( c i t i n g Hope v . Pelzer , 536 U.S. 730, 743–44 (2002)). Prison re g ulations are dr afte d to further

instit utional safety

and other prudential considerations, rather tha

n being drawn to pe rfe ctly trac e the
c o n t o u r s o f

p r i s o n e r s ’ c o n s t i tu t i o n a l r i g h t s

. A c c o r d i n g l y, the y are no t wh oll y de sc ri pti ve of the e xten t of tho se rig hts

. Howeve r, in Hope , f

or e xamp le , the Sup re me Cou rt loo ke d to rules promulg ated by

the Alabama Dep a

rtment of Corre ctions to aid it in determining whether a prison g uard w as on notice of constitutional limi tations on the use of force. Hope , 536 U.S. at 743–44. Her e, OP 29 bea rs direc tly

on the situation that the officers c onfronted, a nd is theref

ore r eleva nt to d e te rm ini ngwh e the r t

he of fi c e rs c ou ld have tho ug ht t he ir
c on du c t w a s r e a so na

ble and lawf ul.

Th ir d, a lth ou g h v e ry

fe w o f o ur

c a se s d eal wi th constitutional li mits on t he use of pepper spray on confine d inmates, it is clear that “[ t ] o d eter mine that the law wa s clea rly established, we need not look to a case with identical
o r even ‘ materia lly

simil ar’ fac ts.” S

e r r a n o v

. F

r a nc is ,F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 13

3 4 5 F

. 3 d 1 0 7 1 , 1 0 7 7 ( 9 th Ci r

. 2 0 0 3 ) ( c it a ti o n s o mi tt e d )

. We have pr evious l y

found no constitutional violation where office rs discharged less pepper spra y than the amount Fur n a c e a ll e g e s w a s s p r ay e d

o nh im in a c a s e w h e r e , u nlike here , prisoners we re e ng ag ed in potentially life-thre atening violence. See Clem ent , 298 F.3d at 901–02, 906 (no constitutional viol ation when of fice rs applied t wo bursts of pepper spray int o ce l l , eac h lasting f

ive sec onds, when one prisoner ha d another

prisoner i n a hea dlock, was punc hing him in the fa ce and slamming his hea d ag ainst the wall, and threatening to kill him). We have a lso held “that use of [t ear g a s] in sma ll amou

nts may be a ne c e ssa ry pr iso n te c hn iqu e if
a pr iso ne r r e fu se s a ft e r ad e qu a te wa rn ing to m ov e fr om a

c e ll
or up on oth e r p ro vo c a tio n p re se nti nga re a so na ble po ssi bil ity th a t s li g h t f

o r c e w il l b e r e qu ir e d.” Spain v. Procunier , 600 F.2d 189, 195 ( 9th Cir. 19 7 9 ). We conclude that the p ri nciple ar

ticulated in Spain w i t hr e s p e c tt o t e ar g a s a lso applies to peppe r spra

y . More br oadly , we ag ree with our sis te r c ir c uit s th a t “ [ i] t is g e ne ra lly re c og nize d th a t ‘ it i s a vio latio n o f t

he Ei g hth Am e ndme nt fo r pr iso n off ic ia ls to u se mace , tear

g as or other

chemica l ag ents i n q u antities g reater than nec essar

y or for the sole purpose of infliction of pain.’” W ill iam s v . B e nja mi n , 7 7 F.3d 756, 763 ( 4th Cir. 1996) (q u o t i n g Soto v. Dick

ey , 744 F.2d 1260, 1270 ( 7th Cir. 1984), cert. de nied , 4 70 U.S

. 1085 (1 98 5) ); se e als o Iko v . Shreve , 535 F.3d 225, 240 ( 4th Cir. 2008) (de n y ing qua lified immunit y to a prison g uard beca

use the rig ht to be fr ee f

rom excessive use of pe pper spr ay was c lear ly

established). H o w e v e r , b e c a

u s e , a s o n e o f

o u r s i s t e r c i r c u i t s n o t e d , “ [w ]e do not r equire of such officia ls the leg al knowledg e culled by the collective hindsight of skilled la wy ers and l earned judge s,” J

oh ns on v . Ca ud

ill , 475 F.3d 645, 650 (4t h C ir. 20 07 ) ( int e rn a l qu otatio n ma rk s o mitte d) , w e pla c e li tt leF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

14

re lia nc e on thi s pa

rt ic ula r p re mis e in o ur

qu a lif ie d im mun ity
ana ly sis

. Our co n stitut ional analy sis in thi s case thus relies primarily on whether

the forc e used by

the offic ers caused
un necess ary

and wa nto n p a in a

nd su ff e ri ng , a s d e fi ne d in Hudson , since that law was undoubtedly clea r. “The question whether the measur e take n inflicted unnec essar y and wa nton pain and s u ff

ering ultimately

turns on whether

forc e wa s applied in a g ood faith ef

fort to maintain or re store discipline
or m aliciously

and sadistically

for the ve ry

purpose of causingharm.” Hudson , 503 U.S. at 6 (citation s omitted). We have pr eviously

identified five fac tors set forth in Hudson to be conside re d in determining how the above question should be answe red; namely , “(1) the extent of injury suffe red by an i n mate; (2) the need f or application of forc e; (3) the relationship betwee n that need and t he amount of f orce used; (4 ) the thr e a t re a so na

bly pe rc e ive d by th e re sp on sib le officia ls; and (5) a

ny eff orts made to temper

the sever ity of a forc eful re sponse.” Ma rti ne z v . S tan for d , 323 F.3d 1178, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003). The application of the Hudson fac tors to this case is there fore deter m i n ati ve of whether

the forc e a p p l i e d t o F u r n a c e w a s w an t o nan d

u n n e c e s s ar

y.
Fi rst, we c onclude that F urnac e’s injuries c aused by the pepper spray wer e moder ate, though relatively enduringfor a che mical ag ent intended to ca use only tem p orar

y disc om for t. I n a dd iti on

to t he pa in o f t

he ini tia l c on ta c t, Fur nace suffe red from burns, bl isters, and skin irritation that persisted for

three or four

day s. Furn ac e also suffere d from
a ra sh on his gr oin that persisted for months, which may

have been c aused by the incident, thoug h Fur nace does not prese nt any evidenc e demonstratin g t h at the ra sh was ca used by the
s p r ay.F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 15

Spon t an eou s u se o f

force can be n ec es s ar y , t h ou g h , i n r es pon s e t o a 4 perc ei ved dan ger or t hr eat , di s cus s ed un der t he f our t h f act or bel ow. Second, we conclude that it is not clea r t h at t he application of force was re quired unde r F urnac e’s ve rsion of the fa cts bec ause Morales c ould have, a s SVSP ’s OP 29 p r e s c r ib e s , s im

p ly o r d e r e d F u r n a c e to r e mo v e h is fing ers from t he food por

t rather than immediately

discharg ing pe pp e r s pr ay

on him . O P 29 dir e c ts c or

re c tio na l of

fi cer s to

“ iss ue a wa

rn ing that c he mic a l a g e nts wi ll be us e d” li kely beca use “the threat of the use of mace , ex ce p t i n a fe w ins tanc e s, br ing s a

bo ut c ompli anc e and

in m os t in sta

nc e s, avoids any

nece ssity

of phy si ca l forc e.” Soto v. Dick ey , 74 4 F.2d at 1263 (summarizing the testimony of a pr ison superintende nt and oth er p rison officia ls). Offic ers c annot justify forc e as ne cessary

for g aining inmate compliance wh e n inmates have b e e n g ive n n o o rd e r w ithwh ic h to
c o mp l y. 4
Third, we a

re not pe rsuade d, after re solving a ll factua l disputes in the light most fa vorable to Furna ce, that the use of vio le nt f or c e , p ri or

to a ve rb a l w arn ing , wa s n e c e ssa ry to g a in F ur na c e ’s c omp lia

nc e . T he fo rc e us e d— dis char g ingburs ts of pepper spray at Fur

nace for about a minute, such that one canister of peppe r spra

y (whatever

portion remain ed ) wa s de ple te d a

nd ano the r w a s a lle g e dly a pp lie d at so me leng th—seems quite extensive and di sproportionate r elative to the disturbance posed by Fur nace ’s fing ertips on the food port. See, e .g. , Clement , 298 F.3d at 901–02 (two five -sec ond bursts of peppe r spra

y applied to pr isoners beatingeac h other and makinghomicidal threats).

Four th, the district court properly found that it remaine d
a dis pute d f

a c t whe the r F ur

na c e po se d a thre a t to the of fi c e rs ,F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

16 such that they

wer e j u s t ified in dischar g ing pe pper spr ay on him. I n Furn ace’s ver sion of the fa cts, the threat posed by Fur nace placing

his finge rtips on the edg e of the food port was likely

not gr eat, if it wa s a thre at at al l

. Fur nace was locked in his ce ll behind a large metal door, a nd had not, by his acc ount, made any aggressive or thre ateningrema rks, or take n an y

actions ag ainst Morales or anyone else . Her e, Fur nace ’s most menacingact wa s to question Morales’s de c isi on no t to de liv e r a ve g e tari an me a l to him , and to tr y to communicate w ith Sot o throug h the food port. Se e Tre ats , 308 F.3d at 872–73 (peppe r spra y i s n ot justi fied whe n an inmate only

questions orders or

seeks r edre ss for an of

fice r’s actions). The office rs re ly on OP 29 and their training for the pr op o s i t i o nt h a tp r i s o n e r s w h o “ t ak e c o n t r o l ” o f f o o d p o rt s pose a “ serious immediate saf ety conce rn” to o ther inmates and to prison staff. As we have alre ady noted thoug h, OP 29 also direc ts that “[t] he off icer shall issue a warning that chemica l ag ents will be used” if the inmate take s con t rol of the port; Fur

nace alleg es he w as g iven no w ar n i n g . The office rs ar e entitled to qualified immunit y fo r “reasona ble, but mist aken, be liefs as to the fa cts establishing the exist ence of . . . exige nt circumstanc es,” Saucier , 533 U.S. at 206, and the d is tr ic t c o u rt gr an te d qu a li f ie d immu n it y o ns ummary judgme nt larg ely

on this premise. Howe ver, F u rn ace’s
re sti nghis fi ng e rs on

the po rt a pp e ars le ss threatening than the sit uatio n de sc ri be d by

OP 2 9, wh e re an inmate “ re fu se s to
r e li n qu is hc o n tr o l o f th e f o o d p o rt, d e s p it e th e w ar

n in g

. ” We th er ef o re disagree with the district court’s c onclusion that F ur na c e ’s a c ti on s, a s h e de sc ri be s th e m, w e re re a so na bly perc eived a s an exige ncy

that justified deviation from OP 29 and justified disc harg ing pepper spray at Fur nace wi thout
wa rn i n g.F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 17

Fifth a nd finally , SVSP staff made an effor t to temper the
se ve ri ty of the ir fo rc e fu l re sp on se by a llo wi ng F ur na c e to de c on tamin a te , a

nd g ivi nghim

me dic a l tr e a tme nt. Th is fa c tor fa vo rs the of

fi c e rs

. Applyin g t h e Hudson fac tors to the fac ts as Fur nace alleg es them, we find that a sig nificant amount o f forc e wa s employ ed without significa nt provocation from Fur

nace or war ning f rom the off

icer s. We t h er efor e conc lude that qualified immunity

was inap propriate ly

g rante d at the summary judgme nt phase of this l itigation. See M artinez , 323 F.3d at 1184 (reve rsing summary judgme nt on the issue of qu a lif ie d immun ity

wh e n th e dis tr ic t c ourt

“ re so lve d a ll
mate ri a l di sp ute s in

fa vo r o f t he of fi c e rs , b ased on the ir decla rations alone” ). We there fore reve rse and re mand the issue of qualif

i ed i m munity

to the district court for

further pr oc e e din g s.
We c a u ti o n th a t w e d o n o t me an to s u g g e s t th a t any and
ever y deviation from prison policy automatically jeopar dizes
a c o r r e c t i o n a l o f

f i c e r ’ s e n t i t l e m e n t t o qu a l i f i e d i m m u n i t y. We are mindful that ex ige ncies a rise, and “[ t] he point of qu a lif ie d immun ity

is t o a llow o ff

ic ia ls t o ta

ke a c tio n w ith i ndepende nce a

nd without fear

of conse quence s.” S

c h we nk
v . H ar tfo rd , 204 F.3d 1187, 1198 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omi tted). Howe ver, ba rringurg ency or e xig e nt c ir c ums tanc e s, tha t im po rt ant i nte res t is l e ss compelling when the appr opriate r esponse to a situation has be e n p re sc ri be d b y

the pr iso n’ s o wn

wr itt e n p oli c ie s. C. Equ al P rote ction

Fur nace alleg es that his rig ht to equ al protec tion was vio late d b e c a

us e he ne ver r e c e ive d a

ve g e tari an b re a kf

a st,F URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

18

w h il e v e g e ta

r ia nb r e ak f a s ts w e r e p r o v id e d

to o th e r inmate s wh o we r e s i m i l ar l y

s i tu a t e d

. “ T h e E qu a l P r o t e c t i o nC l a us e re qu ir e s th e State to t

re a t a ll s imi larl y

sit uate d p e op le equally .” Sh ak

ur v . S chr iro , 514 F.3d 878, 891 ( 9th Cir. 20 08 ) ( c i t a t i o no m i t t e d )

. “ T o s t a t e a c l a i m u n d e r

4 2 U

. S.C. § 1983 for a

violation of the Equal Protec tion Cl ause of the Four teenth Amendme nt a plainti ff must show that the de fe nd ants a c te d w ithan inte nt o r p ur po se to d iscrim in ate ag ainst the plaintiff based upon membership in a p ro tected class.” Barren v. H

arrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 ( 9th Cir. 1998).

The fir st step in determining whether the offic ers violated Fur nace ’s right to equal protec tion is t o identify the re levant
c la s s to w h ic h h e b e lo n g e d

. See T ho rn ton v . Ci ty

of S t. Helens , 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 ( 9th Ci r. 2005). “ The g roups must be comprised of similarly situated persons s o that the fac tor motivating the a lleg ed discrimination ca n be identified.” Id . at 11 67 . T he dis tr ic t court pr op e rl y conclude d that the relevant class of persons for c omparative purposes wa s those inmates who def endants did not know

had been a pproved to re ceive veg etar ian m eals for relig ious or oth e r r e a so ns . B e c a

us e it i s un dis pute d th a t th e of fi c e rs did not know that Fur

nace was e ntitled to such a mea l, Furna ce wa s n o t simil arly

situated to all other inmates who w ere a pp ro ve d to recei ve a

ve g e tari an me a l f

or re lig iou s r e a so ns

. Se e id . (“A n equal pr otection claim will not li e by conflating all persons not injured i nto a pre fer red c lass rec eiving better treatment than the plaintiff.”) (interna l quotat i o n marks omitted). T h e off

icer s stated in sworn testimony that they had n e v e r me t F u r

n a c e p r io r to th e in c id e n t, an d wer e not
aware o f F ur

na c e ’s e nti tle me nt t o a

ve g e tari an me a l. It is also undisputed that Fur

nace never showed them his chrono. Fur nace offe rs no evidenc e to in d i ca t e the officer s knew, orF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN 19

ha d r e a so n to kn ow , a bo ut F ur na c e ’s re lig ion o r h is entitle me n t t o a

v e g e ta r ia nme a l. B e c a

u s e F u r n a c e a d d u ces no evidenc e that he w as treated any differ ently than any other inm a te wh om t

he of fi c e rs did no t kn owwa s e nti tle d to
rec eive a veg etar ian meal, we aff irm the district court’s g rant of summa ry jud g me nt o n F ur

na c e ’s e qu a l pr ote c tio n c la im.

F ur na c e a lso argue s that the of fi c e rs de nie d h im a veg etar ian meal be cause they mistakenly

believed h e was Mu sli m, c iting Mo ra le s’ s a lle g e d s tate me nt a bo ut M us lim s befor e he a

pproac hed F urnac e’s c ell. See E state of Amos ex.
re l. Am os v . Ci ty

of Page, A riz

. , 257 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2001) (in § 1983 suit u n d er the Equal Protec tion clause, “alleg ed discrimination is no less malevolent beca use it was based upon a

n err oneous assumpt ion”). How ever , Fur nace cannot ove rcome his failure to show that he was tre ated dif fe re ntl y tha

n a ny oth e r i nmate s in

the re le va nt c la ss— tho se the of fi c e rs did no t kn owwe re e nti tle d to ve g e tari an me a ls. We also observe that the undisputed evid en ce showed that defe ndants provided ve g etar ian meals to al l other inmates wh o th ey kn e w h a d b e e n a

pp ro ve d to re c e ive su c h me a ls, including Muslims, reg ardle ss of their re ligious af filiation. Be cause the district court prope rly co ncluded that F urnac e “fa iled to r aise a

triable issue of f

act with re spect to whe ther [t he off icer s] i ntentionally

ref u s ed to provide him with a relig ious breakf

ast tray while pr oviding the sa

me to other inmate s w h o w e r e s im il ar ly s it u a te d , ” s u mm ar

y ju dg ment
wa s a pp ro pr iate on

the se c la ims

. CO NC LU SION

B e c a us e dis pu ted issu e s o f m a te ri a l f a c t in thi s c a se prec lude summary

judgme nt for the office rs on the basis of qualified immunity , we reve rse and rema nd on that issue. ForF URNACE V

. S UL L I VAN

20

the re asons noted, the district cour t’s denial of F urnac e’s equal pr otection claim is aff irmed.

RE VE RSE D A ND REM AN DE D i n par t a nd AF F IRMED in part.