N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
OR AY P. FIFER , Pe titione r - Appe lla nt,
v. UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC A, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15275 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01753-NVW
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na Ne il V. W ake , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 7, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s a n d M ENDOZA, ** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt Ora y Fife r (“ Fife r” or “ Appe lla nt” ) a ppe a ls the distric t
c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of the gove rnm e nt on his Fe de ra l Tort



# FIL ED APR 25 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Sa lva dor M e ndoz a , Jr., Distric t Judgefor the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Ea s te rn Distric t of W a shington, sitting by de signa tion.C la im s Ac t

(“ FTC A” ) a s sa

ult a nd ba tte ry c la i m s for da

m a ge s to c om

pe nsate Fife r for a c la i m e d e y e injury c a use d by prison offic ia ls’ e fforts to que ll a prison riot. W e re vie w a grant of sum m ary judgm e nt d

enov o , Olson v
. Morris , 188 F.3d 1083, 1085 (9th C ir. 1999), a n d m ay uphold thedistric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination only if the m ova

nt (he re , the Unite d State s) c an show tha t “ t he re is no ge nuine dispute
a s to a ny m ate ria l fa c t a

nd [the Unite d State s ] is e ntitle d to judgme nt a s a m atte r of la w,” Fe d. R . C iv. Proc . 56(a ). He re , ge n uine dispute s a s to que s tions of m ate ria l fa c t e xist whic h pre c lude sum m ary judgm e nt. Ac c o rdingly , we re ve rse the lowe r c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

nd re m and for furthe r proc e e d ings c onsiste nt with this disposition. I. The FTC A “ a

uthoriz e s priva

te tort a c t ions a ga inst theUnite d State s ‘ unde r c irc um s ta nc e s whe re the Unite d

State s, if a priva

te pe rson, would be

lia ble to the
c la im ant in a c c orda

n c e with thela

wof the pla c e whe re the a c t or om i ssion
oc c urre d.’ ” U.S. v . Olson , 546 U .S. 43, 44 (2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C . § 1346(b)(1)). He re , tha

t pla c e is Ariz ona . Apply i ng Ariz ona la w, we first hold tha

t the d istric t c o urt e rre d to thee xte nt it c onc lude d tha t the re c ord c onta ine d

“ no e vide nc e of batte ry .” Unde r Ariz ona la w, a n a c tor c om

m i ts ba tte ry “ if the a c tor [1] inte ntiona lly

[2] e nga ge s in a

n a c t [3] tha

t re sults in [4] ha

rm ful or offe nsive -2-c onta c t with thepe rson of a nothe r.” Dunc an v . Sc o t tsdale Me d. Imaging, Ltd. , 70 P.3d 435, 438 (Ariz . 2003). He re , two c orre c tiona l offic e rs a dm itte d tha t the y [1] inte ntiona lly

[2] fire d bulle ts a

t Fife r. [3] As a

re sult, [4] m

ultiplerubbe r bulle ts hit Fife r in thehe a d; one hit his le ft e y e , c a using pe rm a

n e nt ha rm . Fife r ha s m a d e a prim a fa c ie c a se of batte ry

unde r Ariz ona

la w. The que s tion is whe the r the gove rnm e nt ha s e sta blishe d its a ffirm ative de fe nse tha

t its useof forc e a ga inst Fife r wa s justifie d a s a m atte r of la

w unde r Ariz ona R e vise d Statute s § 13-403(2). Tha t sta tute provide s tha

t “ [a ] supe rinte nde nt or othe r e ntruste d offic ia l of a ja il, prison or c orre c tiona l institution
m ay use phy sic a l forc e for the pre se rvat ion of pe a c e , to m a i nta i n orde r or disc ipline , or to pre ve nt the c om m ission of a

ny fe lony or m isde m e anor.” Id. ; se e also Pfe il v . Smith , 900 P.2d 12, 14 (Ariz . C t . App. 1995) (sta t ing tha t Se c tion 13- 403 is a n “ a ffirm ative de fe nse in c ivil la wsuits” ). Appe lla nt a rgue s tha t § 13-403(2) a

pplie s only

to gove rnm e nt ( i.e
. , “public ” )
e m ploy e e s, a n d is the re fore una

va ila ble to theUnite d

Stat e s whe n the Unite d Stat e s’ lia bility is m e a s ure d by

tha t of a priva

te pe rson, a s the FTC A re quire s. W e re je c t this a rgum e nt be c a

use its pre m ise is fla

we d: § 13-403(2) is ava ila b le to

“ priva te ” pe rsons. Unlike

othe r provisions of the

sa m e sta tutory sc h e m e , e .g. , Ariz . R e v. Stat. §§ 13-414, 13-416, the te x t of § 13-403(2) doe s not lim it its -3-a

pplic ation to only

priva t e , or only

public , prison offic ia ls. W e the re fore ne e d not de c ide the m ore diffic ult que stion whe the r gove rning FTC A jurisprude nc e pre c lude s the Unite d State s from invoking sta

te -law de fe n se s a

pplic a ble only to

“ public ” c orre c tiona l offic e rs. Howe v e r, we a gre e with Appe lla nt tha t m ate ria l fa c tua l dispute s are m a de out by the re c ord— (1) whe the r Fife r wa s c om ply i ng with a

n offic ia l orde r to re turn to his c e ll whe n

he wa s shot, (2) whe the r Fife r wa s down on ha nds a nd kne e s at the tim e he wa s shot, a

n d (3) whe the r prison offic ia ls inte ntiona lly , but ne e dle ssly , ta rge te d Fife r’ s he a d a

nd fa c e . The se dispute s pre ve nt us from finding tha

t the Unite d State s’ a c tions we re justifie d unde r § 13-403(2) a s a

m atte r of la

w . Se c tion 13-403(2) doe s not giveprison offic i a ls c arte blanc he to use any an d a ll forc e a ga inst prisoners whe n que lling a prison riot. Se eState v . Bojorque

z , 675 P.2d 1314, 1317 (Ariz . 1984) (inte rpre ting § 13-403(2) a s justifyi ng only “ that
am ount of phy sic a l forc e ne c e ssary to m a inta in orde r within theprison” (e m pha sis
a dde d)). A re a sona

ble jury c ould the re fore c onc lude tha t— while c ustodia l offic e rs’ use of forc e to suppre ss the prison riot is ge ne ra lly justifie d—

the ir use of forc e against Fifer

wa s not re a sona

bly “ ne c e ssa ry ” to m a inta in prison order, to pre s e rve the pe a c e , or to pre ve nt the c om m i ssion of a

c rim e . I I. -4-Appe lla nt a rgue s for the first tim e on a ppe a l tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in fa iling to re a d into his p ro sec om pla int a n a dditional c la im

ba se d on sta

te -law ne glige nc e ( i.e
. , tha

t p rison offic ia ls ne g l ige ntly induc e d Fife r to proc e e d into ha rm ’ s wa y by issuing c onflic ting orde rs). B ut e ve n we re we to a c knowle dge tha t the l ibe ra l ple a ding rule s whic h gove rn pro se c o m pla ints would perm it us to
c onstrue Fife r’ s c om

p l a int a s sta

ting a ne glige nc e c la im , a

ny suc h ne glige nc e c la im is wa ive d in this a

ppe a l by virtue of Fife r’ s fa ilure to pursue any the ory sounding in ne glige nc e in his opposition to the Unite d State s ’ m o tion for sum m a ry judgm e nt. Se e Shak

ur v . Sc hriro , 514 F.3d 878 (9th C ir. 2008) (finding tha t a pla i ntiff ha d fa ile d to pre se rve an Esta blishm e nt C la

use c la im on a ppe a l be c a

use , e ve n a s sum ing his pro se

c om pla int c ould belibe ra l ly

c onstrue d a s sta

ting suc h a
c la im , the prisone r ha d c le arly a ba ndone d the issue in his opposition to sum m ary judgm e nt). Fife r’ s c ite d c a se s m e re l y re q uire this c ourt to c o nstrue pro se c om pla i nts libe ra lly

and “ a fford the pe titione r the be ne fit of a ny doubt.” E.g. , W ilhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1121, 1123 (9th Ci r. 2012). The y do not
re quire us to ove rlook Fife r’ s la te r a ba ndonm e nt of a

ny ne g lige nc e c la im
. III. For a ll there a sons se t forth he re in, we RE V ER SE the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

nd REM AND for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste nt with this disposition. -5-