N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JAC OB R

AM IE PR

A TT, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. DEEDS; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16291 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-00615-R C J-VPC M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d August 13, 2013 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS, THOM AS, and M c KEOW N, C irc uit Judge s . Ne va da sta te prisone r Ja c ob R am ie Pra tt a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r granting sum

m ary judgm e nt on his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 c la i m s in fa vor of de fe nda n ts, who a

re c urre n t a

nd form e r c orre c tiona l offic e rs a t Ely Stat e Prison. 

# FIL ED AUG 16 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9 t h C i r. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w the gran t of sum m ary judgm e nt de novo. Furnac e v . Sullivan , 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th C ir. 2013). W e a ffirm in pa rt, re v e rse in pa

rt, a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings.

I The distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e n t on Pra

tt’ s c la im tha t the d e fe nda

nt offic e rs viola

t e d the Eighth Am e ndm e nt by using e xc e ssive forc e a fte r the y fully re stra ine d him

and he wa s no longe r struggling. Pra tt doe s not dispute tha

t the de fe nda

nts use d re a sona ble forc e in subduing him during thec e ll e xtra c tion. Howe v e r, the pa rtie s offe re d

m arke d ly diffe re nt a c c ounts of theforc e use d a fte r Pra tt wa s re stra i ne d. If true , Pra tt’ s a lle gations tha t the de fe nda

nts re pe a te dly

punc h e d him in the fa c e a fte r re s tra ining him , re pe ate dly sla m m e d his he a d into a

sliding door a

nd wa ll, a nd pinne d him

a ga inst thewa ll whileone of the m pinc he d a

nd twiste d his skin a

nd nipple s, e s ta

blish a “ m a lic i ous a

n d sa distic ” use of forc e in viola

tion of the Eighth Am e n dm e nt. C le me nt v . Gome

z , 298 F.3d 898, 903 (9th C ir. 2002). W hile the e xige nc i e s of the c e ll e xtra c tion a nd Pratt’ s viole nt a tta c k on one of the offic e rs wa rran te d the use of forc e to subdueand re stra i n Pra tt, the y

would not justify

the subse que nt a c ts a lle ge d. Se e Hudson v . Mc M i lliam , 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (holding tha t “ t he c ore judic ia l inquiry ” in re solving a

n Eighth Am e ndm e nt e xc e ssive forc e c la im is “ whe the r forc e wa s 2a

pplie d in a

good-fa ith e ffort to m a inta in or re store disc ipline , or m a lic iously and sa distic a lly

to c a use ha rm ” ). In gra

nting sum m ary judgm e nt, the distric t

c o urt e rre d by re solving dispute d issue s of m at e ria l fa c t in thede fe nda nts’ fav or. Se e Furnac e , 705 F.3d a

t 1026 (a ffirm ing tha

t a c ourt re vie wing a

sum m ary judgm e nt m otion m ust “ a ssum e the truth of thee vide nc e se t forth by the nonm oving pa

rty ” ). 1 II The distric t c ourt prope rly grante d the de fe nda

nts’ m otion for sum

m ary judgm e nt on Pra

tt’ s c la im of de libe ra te indiffe re nc e to his m e dic a l ne e ds. To pre v a i l on this c la im , Pra tt m ust show tha

t he wa s “ c o nfine d unde r c o nditions posing a risk of ‘ obje c tive l y , suffic ie ntly se rious’ ha rm and tha

t the offic ia ls ha d a

‘ s uffic ie ntly

c ulpa ble sta te of m ind’ in de ny ing the prope r m e dic a l c are .” C le me nt , 298 F.3d a

t 904 (quoting W

allis v . Baldw in , 70 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th C ir. 1995)). On the obje c tive prong, the de fe nda nts introduc e d e vide nc e tha t Pratt susta i ne d m inor injurie s tha

t we re a ddre sse d by

first a id tre atm e nt. Pratt fa ile d to re spond with e vide nc e of m o re se rious injurie s. Eve n a ssum ing Pratt c re at e d a tria ble issue a s to the se riousne ss of his injurie s, he ha s fa ile d to a lle ge tha

t any de fe nda nt wa s

1 B e c a use a re a s ona ble c orre c tiona l offic e r would know tha t the tre at m e nt a lle ge d would viola

te Pra tt’ s c onstitutiona

l rights, wede c line to a ffirm on the a lte rnate ground tha

t the de fe nda

nts a re e ntitle d to qua lifie d im m unity . Pe arson v . C allahan , 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). 3subje c tive ly

aware of a

n e xc e ssive risk of se rious ha rm to Pratt from

the de nia l of a dditiona l m e dic a l c are . Se e id. (de sc ribing subje c tive c om pone nt of “ de libe ra te indiffe re nc e ” sta

nda rd). B e c a use no re a sona

b le jury c o uld find for Pra

tt on this c la im , the distric t c o urt prope rly grante d sum

m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the de fe nda n ts. III In sum , we re ve rse the grant of sum m ary judgm e nt a s to Pratt’ s Eighth Am e ndm e nt c la im

and a ffirm

the grant of sum

m ary judgm e n t a s to his de libe ra te indiffe re nc e c la im . Ea c h pa rty sha ll be ar its own c osts.

AFFIRM E D IN PART , RE V E RSE D IN PART , AND RE M ANDE D.

4