GARCIA v. 6165 COIII (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

David M. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Minerette JASSO; Ian Thompson, Sergeant; Ende, named as Jane Doe Ende, wife; Riaz, named as Jane Doe Riaz, wife; Rojas, named as Jane Doe, wife; Smalley, named as John Doe Smalley, husband; Lewis, named as Jane Doe Lewis, wife; Carey Tucker, Wife; Tucker, named as John Doe Tucker; husband Defendants-Appellees, Charles L. Ryan; Therese Schroeder, Warden; Fey, Deputy Warden of Santa Rita Unit; Childref, Captain; Richard Johnson, Inmate at Santa Rita Unit of the Tucson Complex; Unknown Parties, named as John and Jane Doe 1-80; Cameron Lewis, husband; Richard Pratt, Director of Division of Health Services; Corizon Health, Inc.; Linda Hammer; Thomas, Unknown Warden; Lundberg, Deputy Warden; J. Kokemor, husband; Tucker; Martin Pacheco, Badge No. 6165; Ryan, named as Jane Doe Ryan, wife; C. Thomas, husband; Thomas, named as Jane Doe Thomas, wife; Chris Moody, husband; Moody, named as Jane Doe Moody, wife; Thompson, named as Jane Doe Thompson, wife; Robert Runge, husband; Runge, named as Jane Doe Runge, wife; Pacheco, named as Jane Doe Pacheco, wife; Jasso, named as John Doe Jasso, husband; Ashis Puri, husband; Puri, named as Jane Doe Puri, wife; Mitchell Craig Patrick, Husband; Patrick, named as Jane Doe Patrick, wife; Randy Luker, husband; Luker, named as Jane Doe Luker, wife; Baker, named as John Doe Baker, husband; Baker, named as Jane Doe Baker, wife; Kokemor, named as John Doe Kokemor, husband; McCutcheon, named as COIII McCutcheon, husband; McCutcheon, named as Jane Doe McCutcheon, wife; Carrie Smalley, wife; Lawrence Ende, husband; Jawad Riaz, husband; Thomas Rawa, husband; Rawa, named as Jane Doe Rawa, wife; Brenda Rojas, wife; Wexford Health Sources Incorporated, Defendants.

No. 19-17366

Decided: November 23, 2020

Before: BYBEE, MURGUIA, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Sean Woods, Attorney, Robert T. Mills, Mills & Woods Law PLLC, Phoenix, AZ, Scott Griffiths, Attorney, Law Office of Scott Griffiths PLLC, Tempe, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant Michelle Catherine Lombino, Assistant Attorney General, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Minerette Jasso, Ian Thompson Dustin A. Christner, Attorney, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Ende, Riaz, Rojas, Smalley, Lewis, Carey Tucker, Tucker

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff David Garcia appeals from the district court's summary judgment denying his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Eighth Amendment claim against Corrections Officer Minerette Jasso for injuries incurred during a violent prison riot. Garcia contends that the district court erred in applying the emergency standard for an Eighth Amendment violation in Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986), and should have instead applied the deliberate indifference standard established in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994). “We review the district court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo.” Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1122 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm.

The district court did not err in applying Whitley to Garcia's claims. We have made clear that “[i]n emergency circumstances, such as those that exist during a prison uprising, where prison officials must weigh the competing institutional interests of ensuring the safety of staff, visitors, and inmates, and where life-and-death decisions must be made quickly,” “prison officials’ actions and accompanying state of mind should [ ] be measured against the Whitley standard for an Eighth Amendment violation” during the emergency. Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726, 733–34 (9th Cir. 2000). Garcia's argument that Whitley is limited to use of force claims is without support.

As such, Garcia was required to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact that Jasso acted “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320–21, 106 S.Ct. 1078 (citation and quotation marks omitted). The district court did not err in finding that Garcia has failed to do so.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law