Source: https://casetext.com/case/oliver-v-keller/
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 11:16:37
Document Index: 333294106

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1331', '§ 1291', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1983', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997', '§ 1997']

Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623 | Casetext Search + Citator
Oliver v. Keller
"[T]he requisite physical injury must be more than de minimis for purposes of § 1997e(e)." Oliver v. Keller,…
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), provides that "[n]o Federal civil action may…
Full title:Eric D. OLIVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jerry KELLER, Sheriff; Kyle…
289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002)
holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act "requires a prior showing of physical injury that need not be significant but must be more than de minimis"
Summary of this case from Rencher v. Bannister
Thomas D. Dillard, Jr. (argued), Rawlings, Olson, Cannon, Gormley Desruisseaux, Las Vegas, NV, for appellees.
Before HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and WILKEN, District Judge.
Honorable Claudia Wilken, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
In an issue of first impression in this Circuit, we must decide whether the district court correctly employed a de minimis standard to interpret "physical injury" under § 1997e(e) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) ("PLRA"). We also decide whether any physical injury requirement applies to claims other than those for mental and emotional injury. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction under 14 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
The statute reads: "no federal civil action may be brought by a prisoner confined in jail, prison, or other correctional facility, for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury." 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e).
In his complaint Oliver describes the cells as "a human carpet" without room to sit or stand. He alleges that inmates had to sleep on hard floors, were not provided with bed linens, had to drink out of unsanitary faucets, and were bothered by the 24-hour overhead lighting and excessive air conditioning. Oliver claims he experienced "severe back and leg pain" from sitting and sleeping in the temporary cells, and "was chilled to the bone" due to the cool cell temperatures. He also claims that while he sought treatment for his back condition, prison officials failed to provide him with medical attention. Oliver was transferred out of the second temporary holding cell to a permanent cell on April 6, at 11:10 p.m. CCDC transferred Oliver to another incarceration facility on April 11, 1997.
However, Oliver concedes during deposition that he did not request medical attention, and in fact did not experience any physical injury during the April incarceration period.
Oliver was again arrested by Metro officers on August 12, 1997, and transported to CCDC. He was again booked, medically screened and placed in a series of temporary holding cells. He claims that the temporary cell conditions during this second detention period were similar to those he had experienced in April. Oliver also alleges that another prisoner beat him in a fight over sitting space. He claims that he again complained to officials of back pain, but was not given medical attention at any time before his release on August 29. Oliver was arrested three weeks later on September 19, and was housed in the temporary holding cells for approximately 50 hours. His complaint details similarly "dehumanizing" and overcrowded conditions during this third period of incarceration.
Again, Oliver's deposition testimony is in tension with the facts alleged in his complaint. At deposition, he admitted that he suffered no physical injuries during his August detention in the temporary holding cells. He further admitted that the skirmish with the other inmate did not concern floor space, but access to the telephone.
A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. See Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, we must determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Id. Further, Oliver's pro se complaint should be dismissed only if it is "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Akao v. Shimoda, 832 F.2d 119, 120 (9th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
We begin by considering whether the district court properly interpreted § 1997e(e). We note at the outset that the phrase "physical injury" does not wear its meaning on its face. In drafting § 1997e(e), Congress failed to specify the type, duration, extent, or cause of "physical injury" that it intended to serve as a threshold qualification for mental and emotional injury claims. Nor did it define the meaning or limits of "mental or emotional injury." The district court based its de minimis analysis of "physical injury" on Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997). In Siglar, a prisoner filed a § 1983 claim against Texas prison officials after guards bruised his ear during a search. Id. at 192. The ear remained bruised and sore for three days. The prisoner did not seek or receive medical treatment, nor did he allege that he had suffered any long-term physical injuries. The court dismissed the prisoner's claim, stating "In the absence of any definition of `physical injury' in [Section 1997e(e)], we hold that the well established Eighth Amendment standards guide our analysis in determining whether a prisoner has sustained the necessary physical injury to support a claim for mental or emotional suffering. That is, the injury must be more than de minimus [sic], but need not be significant." Id. at 193.
The Eleventh Circuit has explicitly adopted the Siglar de minimis approach, see Harris v. Garner, 190 F.3d 1279, 1286 (11th Cir. 1999), vacated by Harris v. Garner, 197 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 1999), reinstated in part on reh'g by Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d 970 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc), reasoning that an interpretation that " any allegation of physical injury is sufficient . . . would undermine the statute's essential purpose — `to curtail frivolous and abusive prisoner litigation.'" Id. (emphasis in original). Similarly, the Second Circuit cited Siglar in holding that alleged sexual assaults "would constitute more than ` de minimis' injury" and were thus sufficient under § 1997e(e) to sustain a § 1983 claim. Liner v. Goord, 196 F.3d 132, 135 (2d Cir. 1999).
Appellees provide a statutory analysis of the PLRA to argue that Congress drafted § 1997e(e) to give courts a tool to dismiss unmeritorious prisoner claims on the pleadings, where appropriate. The analysis fairly summarizes the legislative history behind § 1997e(e).
Appellant argues that a plain reading of § 1997e(e) does not qualify the term "physical injury," and therefore any physical injury should be enough to sustain a claim under the statute, citing Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 1999), and Waters v. Andrews, 2000 WL 1611126 (W.D.N.Y. 2000). Appellant's reliance on these authorities is unavailing, as Gomez explicitly endorses the Siglar approach, see Gomez, 163 F.3d at 924, and Waters, a district court decision, appears to be out of step with the Second Circuit's reasoning in Liner. Further, the phrase "physical injury" standing alone does not more readily yield to modification by the word "any" than it does to modification by other words. Certainly, if Congress had meant that "any" physical injury was sufficient to permit a prisoner's mental and emotional injury claim, it could have said as much. See United States v. Gonzales, 520 U.S. 1, 6, 117 S.Ct. 1032, 137 L.Ed.2d 132 (1997). We are thus left to determine how "physical injury" should be understood absent modifiers in the statutory language itself.
Our survey of case law on the meaning of "physical injury" in § 1997e(e) demonstrates a consistent application of the de minimis approach first adopted in Siglar. Following the Second, Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, we hold today that for all claims to which it applies, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) requires a prior showing of physical injury that need not be significant but must be more than de minimis. This interpretation reflects Congress's intent in passing the PLRA. See, e.g., Harris v. Garner, 216 F.3d at 977 (analyzing in detail the legislative history behind § 1997e(e) to conclude that the legislation was intended to curtail frivolous prisoner litigation); Dawes v. Walker, 239 F.3d 489, 495 (2d Cir. 2001) ("Congress intended § 1997e(e) to reduce the burgeoning volume of prisoner litigation in the federal courts.").
In Canell v. Lightner, 143 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 1998), we refused to apply § 1997e(e)'s prior physical injury requirement to a § 1983 action alleging violation of a prisoner's First Amendment rights because "deprivation of First Amendment rights entitles a plaintiff to judicial relief wholly aside from the physical injury he can show, or any mental or emotional injury he may have incurred . . . regardless of the form of relief sought." Id. at 1213. Nothing in our holding today disturbs our prior holding in Canell.
We adhere to traditional principles of statutory interpretation. Where a statute's plain meaning is clear, turns to legislative history are unnecessary. See Gonzales, 520 U.S. at 6, 117 S.Ct. 1032 (1997) ("Given the straightforward statutory command, there is no reason to resort to legislative history."). But where a statute yields to "more than one reasonable interpretation, we turn to legislative history, looking to the entire statutory scheme." United States v. Daas, 198 F.3d 1167, 1174 (9th Cir. 1999).
However, in embracing the de minimis physical injury standard under § 1997e(e) adopted by the Second, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits, we do not subscribe to the reasoning set forth by the Fifth Circuit in Siglar, which purports to follow established Eighth Amendment standards for determining when a prisoner has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, stating that "the injury must be more than de minimis." Siglar, 112 F.3d at 193. This does not accurately describe the Eighth Amendment standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). In Hudson, the Court held that " de minimis uses of physical force" are not constitutional violations, focusing on the amount of force used, not the nature or severity of the injury inflicted. Id. at 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 995. The Fifth Circuit has read Hudson to create a de minimis physical injury requirement under the Eighth Amendment, stating in Gomez, 163 F.3d at 924, that "to support an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim a prisoner must have suffered from the excessive force a more than de minimis physical injury." The Eleventh Circuit in Harris, while embracing a de minimis physical injury requirement for § 1997e(e) as we do today, criticized the Fifth Circuit's reasoning, pointing out that the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of Hudson differed from its own Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. See Harris, 190 F.3d at 1286-87.
We decline appellant's invitation to hold that "any" physical injury is sufficient to meet the demands of § 1997e(e), because such an interpretation would ignore the intent behind the statute. However, we also decline the invitation of appellees to adopt an even more restrictive approach than the "bare" de minimis interpretation countenanced by Siglar. Appellees cite Luong v. Hatt, 979 F.Supp. 481 (N.D.Tex. 1997), to argue that de minimis "physical injury" under § 1997e(e) should be understood as "an observable or diagnosable medical condition requiring treatment by a medical care professional," which would cause a "`free world person' to seek such treatment." Id. at 486. If appellant's proposed standard requires too little, appellees' proposed standard requires too much. Accordingly, the district court did not err in applying a de minimis analysis to evaluate whether appellant's mental and emotional injury claims could proceed. The Requirement Applied
Applying § 1997e(e) to this case, we conclude that appellant has alleged only de minimis physical injury, and is barred from pursuing claims for mental and emotional injury. Appellant alleges three types of physical injury. First, he claims to have suffered back and leg pain from sitting and sleeping on the benches and floor of the temporary cell. While appellant now contends that the pain was "severe and lasting," on deposition he testified that "it was nothing too serious" and that he did not seek medical treatment. Second, appellant claims that he was assaulted by another prisoner in a fight directly caused by the overcrowded cell conditions. Again, on deposition, appellant admitted that the fight was not over floor space, as initially alleged, but over use of the telephone. Appellant also fails to describe the nature of the physical injuries, if any, that he suffered from the fight. Third, appellant alleges a painful canker sore he developed during his September detention, for which he sought and received treatment at CCDC. Appellant cannot generate an issue of material fact by providing contradictory statements. See Kennedy v. Allied Mut. Ins. Co., 952 F.2d 262, 266 (9th Cir. 1991). However, even assuming that appellant suffered all the injuries he alleges, they are not more than de minimis. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing appellant's claim for emotional injury on the basis of § 1997e(e). The Scope of the Requirement
We conclude that appellant's injuries are de minimis under the Siglar rule we adopt today. However, the district court's summary judgment order does not clarify whether appellant alleged "an insufficient injury to be of a constitutional magnitude" under Siglar or Luong. If an injury is not sufficient under the "bare" de minimis rule in Siglar, it is certainly not sufficient under the more demanding de minimis rule in Luong, and the ambiguity in the district court's ruling does not result in harmful error.
Appellant argues that even if his claim is barred to the extent he seeks damages for emotional injury, the district court erred in dismissing his remaining § 1983 damages claims on the basis of § 1997e(e). We first observe that § 1997e(e) applies only to claims for mental and emotional injury. However, appellant's complaint expressly seeks broader forms of redress for the underlying constitutional violations alleged. The "Request for Relief" seeks an award of "COMPENSATORY DAMAGES . . . for physical and emotional injuries suffered as a result of . . . violations of Plaintiff's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment . . . PUNITIVE DAMAGES . . . and other such relief as it may appear Plaintiff is entitled as deemed necessary by the Court."
In considering the scope of § 1997e(e), some circuits have merely recognized that § 1997e(e) may not bar claims for nominal and punitive damages. See Davis v. District of Columbia, 158 F.3d 1342, 1348 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (suggesting possibility of nominal but not punitive damages); Harris, 190 F.3d at 1288 n. 9 (declining to reach issue of nominal damages because plaintiffs had not requested nominal damages). However, at least two circuits expressly resolve the issue. In Allah v. Al-Hafeez, 226 F.3d 247 (3d Cir. 2000), the Third Circuit determined that § 1997e(e) did not bar a claim for nominal and punitive damages for alleged constitutional violations. Id. at 251-52. See also Searles v. Van Bebber, 251 F.3d 869, 879-81 (10th Cir. 2001) (even absent physical injury, prisoner was entitled to seek nominal and punitive damages under § 1997(e)).
holding that plaintiff in § 1983 action who failed to allege more than de minimis physical injury could not recover mental or emotional damages stemming from it
Summary of this case from Poole v. Milusnic
holding the Eighth Amendment excessive force standard "examines whether the use of physical force is more than de minimis."
holding that the district court did not err in dismissing claims for emotion injury
Summary of this case from Estrada v. Vanderpoel
holding the excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries
holding that § 1997e(e) does not bar actionable claims for compensatory, punitive, and nominal based on constitutional violations rather than on emotional injury
holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) requires that a prisoner pursing a federal civil action must make prior showing of more than de minimis physical injury for an award of compensatory damages
holding that a painful canker sore and back and leg pain are de minimis and will not support a claim for mental or emotional injury under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act
holding that back and leg pain caused by sitting on cement floor, undefined injuries from being assaulted by another prisoner and a painful canker sore were de minimis injuries
holding that physical injury must be more than de minimis for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) but not extending the requirement to Eighth Amendment excessive force cases, which focus on whether the use of physical force is more than de minimis
Summary of this case from Bender v. Sullivan
holding that "§ 1997e(e) applies only to claims for mental and emotional injury" and not to claims for compensatory damages that "are premised on alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations"
Summary of this case from Ford v. Bender
holding that back and leg pain caused by sitting on cement floor, undefined injuries from being assaulted by another prisoner and a painful canker sore were de minimis injuries insufficient to satisfy § 1997e(e)
Summary of this case from Colon v. Wilson
holding that the Eighth Amendment inquiry focuses "on the amount of force used, not the nature or severity of the injury inflicted"
Summary of this case from Hemphill v. High Desert State Prison
holding that under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), a prisoner may pursue an excessive force claim in federal court by showing that the force resulted in more than a " de minimis physical injury"
Summary of this case from Wright v. California Department of Corrections
holding that the Eighth Amendment "necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnancy to the conscience of mankind".
Summary of this case from NAVARRO v. BACH
holding that back and leg pain caused by sitting on the cement floor, undefined injuries from being assaulted by another prisoner, and a painful canker sore were de minimis injuries insufficient to satisfy physical injury requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e)
Summary of this case from Young v. Chandler-Dacanay
holding that physical injury must be more than de minimis and finding that back and leg pain caused by sitting on the cement floor, undefined injuries from being assaulted by another prisoner, and a painful canker sore were de minimis
Summary of this case from Fuentez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Corr.
holding that a painful canker sore and back and leg pain are de minimis and, in the absence of any further description of physical injuries, will not support a claim for mental or emotional injury under the PLRA
Summary of this case from Haynes v. Czerniak
finding requests for punitive, nominal, and compensatory damages were not barred by § 1997e(e)
Summary of this case from Howard v. Barney
finding back and leg pain and canker sore de minimis
Summary of this case from Finefeuiaki v. Maui Cmty. Corr. Ctr. Staff
finding that Eighth Amendment excessive force standard examines de minimis uses of force, not de minimis injuries
Summary of this case from Hall v. Myotte
finding that "[Luong] requires too much," but an any-injury standard is "too little"
Summary of this case from Gardner v. Zavadil
finding § 1997e(e) inapplicable to claims for compensatory damages not premised on mental or emotional injury
concluding that § 1997e(e) did not bar claim for nominal and/or punitives in the case before it, liberally construing a pro se complaint as seeking nominal damages as well as the punitive expressly sought
Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Newryder