NO T F O R P UBLI CATI O N

UNI T E D S T A T E S COURT OF A P P E A L S

F OR T H E NI NT H CI RCUI T

GORDON C. RE I D ,

P l ai n ti f f

- A p pel l an t,

v

.
UNI T E D S T A T E S O F A M E RI CA ; et al .,

Def en dan ts

- A ppel l ees

. No. 18- 16042

D. C. No. 1: 14- cv
- 01163- L J O- J L T

M E M O RA

NDUM *

A ppeal f r om th e Un i ted S tates Di s tr i ct Cou r t f or th e E as t er

n Di s tr i ct of Cal i f

or n i a L awr en ce J

. O’ Nei l l , Di s tr i ct J u dg e, P r es i di n g

A r g u ed an d S u

bm i tted A u g u s t 11, 2020 S an F r an ci s co, Cal i f

or n i a

B ef or e: H A WK

I NS an d CH RI S T E

N, Ci r cu i t J u d g es , an d B A T A I L L ON, * * Di s tr i ct J u dg e.

Gor don

Rei d appeal s th e or der di s m i s s i n g h i s F i r s t an d E i g h

th A m en dm

en t

cl ai m s , br ou g h

t pu r s u an t to B ivens v. Six Unknow n Named A gents of F

ed. B ur eau of Nar cotics , 403 U. S

. 388 ( 1971) , an d th e F eder al T or t Cl ai m s A ct ( F T CA ) , 28



# FI L E D

S E P 2 2020

M O LLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. COURT OF APPEAL S

* T h i s di s pos i ti on

i s n ot appr opr i ate f

o r p u bl i cati on an d i s n o t pr eceden t
ex cept as pr ov i ded by Ni n th Ci r cu i t Ru l e 36- 3.

* * T h e H on or abl e J os eph F

. B atai l l o n , U n i ted S tates Di str i ct J u dg e f or th e D i s tr i ct of Nebr as ka, s i tti n g by des i g n ati on

.U. S

. C. § 1346, ag ai n s t g u ar ds at th e f

eder al cor r ecti on al f

aci l i t y wh er e h e was a

pr i s on er

. 1 We h av e ju

r i s d i cti on pu

r s u an t to 2 8 U. S .C. § 1291. We r ev i ew d e n ov o

a di str i ct cou

r t’ s or der di s m

i s s i n g an acti on f

o r f ai l u r e t o s tate a cl ai m , Dunn v.

Cas t r o , 621 F

. 3d 1196, 1198 ( 9th Ci r

. 2010) , an d we af f i r m i n par t, r ev er s e i n par

t,

an d r em an d.

B ecau s e th e par

t i es ar e f am i l i ar wi th th e f

acts , we r eci te on l y t

h o se

n eces s ar y to r es ol v e th e i s su es on appeal

.
1. T h e di str i ct cou

r t er r ed by di s m

i s si n g Rei d’ s E i g h

th A m en d m en t

B ivens cl ai m s ag ai n s t al l def en dan ts

. T h e S u

p r em e Cou

r t h as pr ev i o u s l y

ackn owl edg ed F o u

r th , F i f th , an d E i g h

t h A m en dm en t B ivens cl ai m s bu

t h as

r ecen tl y i n d i cated th at r ecog n i zi n g n ew ty pes of B ivens cl ai m s i s “ di s f av or ed. ”

Z iglar v. A b bas i , 1 37 S

. Ct. 1843, 1 855–57, 1860 ( 2017)

. W h en pr es en ted wi th a

B ivens cl ai m , th e S u

p r em e Cou

r t h as i n s tr u cted cou r ts to an al y ze: ( 1) “ wh eth er a

cas e pr es en

ts a n ew B ivens con

tex t ;” an d ( 2) wh eth er an y “ s peci al f

actor s

cou n sel i n g h es i tati on i n th e abs en ce of af f i r m ati v e acti on by Con g r es s ” war r an t
ju di ci al abs ten

ti on

. I d. at 1857, 1859–60 ( qu oti n g Car ls on v. Gr een , 446 U

. S

. 14,

18 ( 1980) )

.

1 Rei d al s o br ou g h

t a F ou r th A m en dm

en t ex ces si v e f

or ce B ivens cl ai m , bu

t at ar g u m en t, h e con ceded t

h at th i s cl ai m i s m

os t appr opr i atel y addr es s ed u n der th e E i g h th A m en dm

en t.

2Rei d’ s E i g h th A m en d m en t cl ai m s d o n ot pr es en

t a n ew B ivens con

tex t. I n

Car l s on , th e S u

pr em e Cou

r t r ecog n i zed an E i g h

t h A m en dm

en t B ivens cl ai m bas ed

on pr i son er m

i s tr eatm en

t. 446 U. S

. at 18; see A bbas i , 137 S

. Ct. at 1864–65. A

cl ai m f or dam ag es bas ed on i n di v i du al i zed m i s tr eatm en

t by r an k- an d- f i l e f eder al

of f i cer s i s ex actl y

wh at B ivens was m ean

t to addr es s

. S

ee L anuz a v. L ove , 8 99

F

. 3d 1019, 1029–32 ( 9th Ci r

. 2018)

. Con t i n u i n g to r ecog n i ze E i g h

th A m en dm en t

B ivens cl ai m s pos t

-

A bbas i wi l l n ot r equ i r e cou r ts to p l o w n ew g r o u

n d becau s e

th er e i s ex ten s i v e cas e l aw es tabl i s h i n g con di ti on s of con f i n em en t cl ai m s an d th e

s tan dar d f or ci r cu m s tan ces t

h at con s ti tu

te cr u el an d u n u s u al pu n i sh m en t. E .g. ,
Huds on v. M

cM illian , 503 U. S

. 1, 8 ( 1992) ( n oti n g th at th e Cou

r t h as “ ex t en ded

th e d el i ber ate i n di f

f er en ce s t an dar d appl i ed to E i g h t h A m en dm

en t cl ai m s i n

v ol v i n g

m edi cal car e to cl ai m s abou t con di ti on s of con f

i n em en t”) ; P er alta v. Dillar

d , 744

F

. 3d 1076, 1082 ( 9th

Ci r

. 2014)

.
S peci al f actor s do n ot cou

n s el ag ai n s t al l owi n g Rei d to pr es s h i s cl ai m h er e.

I n deed, th e oppos i te h ol ds tr u e. F i r s t, Rei d h as n o oth er v i abl e r em edy

. See

L anuz a , 899 F

. 3d at 1031–33. T h e pr i s on ’ s i n ter n al adm i n i s tr ati v e pr oces s i s n ot

av ai l abl e to h i m

becau se th e al l eg edl y u

n con s t i tu t i on al tr eatm en

t d es cr i b ed i n h i s

com pl ai n t w as i n f l i cted i n r etal i ati on f

or h i s ear l i er attem

pt t o r epor

t abu s e by a

pr i s on g u ar d th r o u g h th e pr i s on ’ s i n

ter n al g r i ev an ce pr oces s

. T h e F T CA d o es n ot

3al l ow acti on s ag ai n s t i n di v i du al g u ar ds , s o i t does n ot of

f er a m ean s f

or deter r i n g

f u tu r e m i s con du ct. See Car l

s on , 446 U. S

. at 21–23. T h e g ov er n m en t does n ot

attem pt to ex pl ai n h ow Rei d’ s i n

ju r i es cou l d be r edr es s ed th r ou g h h abeas , state- l aw

r em edi es on l y ex i s t f

or acti on s ou

ts i de th e s cope o f em

p l oy m en t, an d equ i tabl e

r el i ef does n oth i n g to cu

r e th e dam ag e Rei d al r eady su f f er ed. Cf. A bbas i , 137 S

.
Ct. at 1865. F i n al l y , we con cl u de t h at al l owi n g Rei d’ s cl ai m s t o pr oceed wou l d

n ot r es u l t i n i n appr opr i ate ju di ci al i n tr u s i on i n t o B u r eau of P r i son s ( B OP ) pol i cy

.
Rei d does n ot s eek to ch an g e B OP pol i cy ; h e al l eg es i n d i v i du al i zed i n j u r i es an d

f ear s of r etal i ati on

u n i qu e t o h i m , n ot th e i n

m ate popu l ati on as a wh ol e. See id. at
1860; Cor r ectional Ser vs

. Cor p. v. M ales ko , 5 34 U. S

. 61, 70 ( 2001)

. W e ar e

m i n df u l th at q u al i f i ed i m m u n i ty pr otects a br o ad swath o f con d u ct. See M

a les ko ,
534 U. S

. at 70.

2. Rei d’ s E i g h

th A m en dm en t ex ces s i v e f

or ce cl ai m s wer e pl au s i bl y pl eaded an d th e di s tr i ct cou r t er r ed by di s m

i s si n g th es e cl ai m s pu

r s u an t to th e

s cr een i n g r equ i r em en

ts of th e P r i s on L i ti g ati on Ref or m A ct ( P L RA ) , 28 U. S

. C.
§ 1915A

. T h e E i g h

th A m en dm

en t’ s ex ces s i v e f

o r ce s tan d ar d r equ i r es a pl ai n ti f f to

al l eg e th at cor

r ecti on al of

f i cer s : ( 1) acted f

o r t h e “ v er y pu r pos e of cau s i n g h ar

m ”;
( 2 ) “ u s ed ex ces s i v e an d u n n eces s ar y f o r ce u n der al l of t

h e ci r cu m s tan ces ”; an d ( 3)

“ cau s ed th e pl ai n

ti f f h ar m

. ” H oar d v. Har tman , 904 F

. 3 d 7 80, 788 & n .9 ( 9th Ci r

.

42018)

. T h e di s tr i ct cou r t r u l ed th at Rei d di d n ot pl au s i bl y al l eg e ex ces si v e f

or ce

becau se h e di d n ot pr ov i d e “ f acts by wh i ch th e cou

r t m ay ev al u ate th e n eed f

or appl i cati on of f

or ce, th e r el ati on s h i p between th at n eed an d th e am ou n t of f or ce

u s ed, th e th

r eat r eas on abl y per cei v ed by th e r es pon s i bl e of f i ci al s , an d an

y ef f or ts

m ade to tem

per t h e s ev er i ty

of a f or cef u l r es pon s e. ” B u

t Rei d des cr i

bed i n detai l

th r ee i n s tan ces wh er e of

f i cer s u s ed f

or ce to i n j u r e h i m at ti m

es wh er e h e al l eg es h e

of f er ed n o r es i s tan ce. See B yr d v. P hoenix P olice Dep’ t , 885 F

. 3d 639, 642–43
( 9 th Ci r

. 2 018) ( p er cu

r i am ) ( h ol di n g t

h at pr o se pl ai n

ti f f ’ s “ u s e of a col l oqu i al ,

s h or th an d ph r as e” an d des cr i pti on of h i s i n ju r i es s tated cl ai m of u

n r eas o n abl e

f or ce)

. Rei d’ s am en ded com pl ai n t al l eg ed th at h e was al r eady h an dcu f f ed an d

l y i n g f ace- down wh en a g u ar d s l am m ed h i s h ead i n

to an i r on r ai l , an d th at h e was

twi ce h el d i n f

u l l r es t r ai n ts wi th h i s h an ds ti g h

tl y h an dcu f

f ed i n a bl ack box f

or 48-

h ou r s an d l ef t u n abl e to u r i n ate, def

ecate, s l eep, or

“ atten d to an

y h y g i en i c tas k, ” i n

r etal i ati on f

or f i l i n g adm i n i s tr ati v e g r i ev an ces an d n ot as a r es u l t o f an y

di s ci p l i n ar

y i n f r acti on

. Gi v en th es e al l eg ati on s , i t i s r eas on abl e to i n f er th at Rei d’ s

pr o s e com

pl ai n t al l eg ed th at t

h e of f i cer s u s ed u

n n eces sar y f or ce i n ten ded to i n

ju r e

h i m

. T h i s i s en ou g h t o s u r v i v e P L RA s cr een i n g

. See A khtar v. M es a , 698 F

. 3d
1202, 1 212 ( 9th Ci r

. 2012) ( n oti n g th at cou r ts h av e “ an

obl i g ati on wh er e th e

5peti ti on er i s pr o se, par ti cu l ar l y i n ci v i l r i g h

ts cas es , to con s tr

u e th e pl eadi n g s

l i ber al l y an d to af

f or d th e peti ti on er th e ben ef i t of an y dou bt”)

.
3. Rei d’ s E i g h

th A m en dm en t cl ai m s p r em

i s ed o n u n con s ti tu ti on al

con di ti on s of con f

i n em en t l i kewi s e s u

r v i v e. T o pl ead th i s ty

pe of cl ai m , an i n

m ate

m u st al l eg e: ( 1) su f

f i ci en t l y s er i ou s h ar

m , i n th at h e i s den i ed “ th e m i n i m al

ci v i l i zed m

eas u r e of l i f e’ s n eces s i ti es ”; an d ( 2) th at pr i s on o f f i ci al s wer e

del i b er atel y i n di f

f er en t to a su bs tan ti al r i s k to h i s s af

ety

. F ar m er v. B r ennan , 511

U. S

. 825, 834 ( 1994) ( qu oti n g R hodes v. Chapman , 452 U. S

. 3 37, 347 ( 1981) )

.
Del i ber ate i n di f

f er en ce r equ i r es pr i s on of

f i ci al s t o be awar e of

a su b stan ti al r i s k of

h ar m an d to d i s r eg ar d th at r i s k. I d. T h e di s tr i ct cou

r t ag r eed th at th e h ar

m Rei d

des cr i bed was s u f

f i ci en tl y s er i ou s , bu

t Rei d al s o pl au s i bl y al l eg ed th at each of f i cer

was awar e of th e h ar

m cau s ed by th ei r i n di v i d

u al acti on s , y et l ef

t h i m to s u f

f er

an y way

. See Hear ns v. T

er hune , 413 F

. 3d 1036, 1041 ( 9th Ci r

. 2 005) ( r ev er s i n g

di s m i s s al becau s e pr i son er pl eaded f acts th at of

f i cer s kn ew h e was at r i sk of h ar m

f r om oth er i n m ates an d l ef

t h i m al on e w i th

th e oth er i n m ates wh o beat h i m

)

. T h es e

cl ai m s al s o s h ou l d h av e s u r v i v ed P L RA s cr een i n g becau s e Rei d’ s al l eg ati on s ar e pl au s i bl e. S

ee 28 U

. S

. C. § 1915A ( b) ( 1) ( pr i s on er cl ai m s s u r v i v e s cr een i n g i f th ey

“ s tate a cl ai m on wh i ch r el i ef m ay b e g r an ted”)

.

64. We af f i r m th e or der di s m

i s s i n g Rei d ’ s F i r s t A

m en dm en t B ivens

cl ai m s ag ai n s t al l def

en dan ts

. S peci al f

actor s , n am el y t

h e av ai l abi l i t

y of adequ ate

al ter n ati v e r em edi es , cou

n sel h es i tati on

. A bbas i , 137 S

. Ct. 1 8 57–58. On th e f acts

of th i s cas e, Rei d can u s e h i s E i g h th A m en dm

en t ex ces si v e f

or ce cl ai m s to

v i n d i cate th e i n

ju r i es cau s ed b y th e of

f i cer s ’ r etal i ator

y acti on s

.
5. We r ev er s e th e or der di s m i s s i n g Rei d’ s F T CA cl ai m s

. T h e di s tr i ct

cou r t di s m i s s ed Rei d ’ s pr o s e cl ai m s f o r f ai l u r e to pl ead ex h au s ti on

. E x h au sti on

u n der th e F T CA i s ju

r i sdi cti on al , B rady v. United States , 211 F

. 3 d 499, 502 ( 9th

Ci r

. 2000) , bu

t Rei d i s n ow r epr es en

ted an d h e as s er

ts th at h e can s h o w th at h e

ex h au s ted h i s F T CA cl ai m s i f g i v en th e ch an ce to do s o on r em an d. A ccor di n g l y ,

we r em an d to th e d i s tr i ct cou r t to deter m i n e i f am en dm

en t wou l d be f

u ti l e. See

B oz z io v. E M I Gr p. L td. , 811 F

. 3d 1144, 1154 ( 9th Ci r

. 2016)

.

AF F I RM ED I N P A R T, REVERS ED I N P ART, R EM ANDED , wi t h th e par ti es

to b ear th ei r own cos ts

.

7