Charles Manley v. Michael Rowley, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1590

Background

On July 2, 2009 Manley and his cellmate fought at Ely State Prison; Manley says he called Officer Zimmer for removal and acted in self‑defense; Zimmer denies receiving calls.
Officers Rowley, Jones, Hammock and others extracted both inmates while the extraction was video‑recorded; the single camera panned away from Manley for a period.
Manley alleges that during the unrecorded interval he was punched, kicked, stomped, and later carried by wrist and leg restraints (contrary to ESP training), suffering injuries; he had been using methamphetamine that day.
Manley filed prison grievances and administrative appeals challenging the disciplinary process and asserting he requested removal; his grievances were denied at all levels.
Manley sued under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for excessive force (against the extracting officers) and deliberate indifference/failure to intervene (against Officer Zimmer). The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on both claims; the magistrate had recommended denial as to excessive force and dismissal without prejudice as to Zimmer for failure to exhaust.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal/summary judgment for the deliberate‑indifference claim (failure to exhaust) but reversed summary judgment on the excessive‑force claim and remanded, ordering reassignment to a different district judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive force: whether disputed facts preclude summary judgment	Manley: officers beat him during the period the camera panned away and carrying him by restraints was wanton force causing pain	Officers: no beating occurred; carrying restraints was necessary to restore order (though contrary to training)	Reversed summary judgment for defendants — genuine disputes of material fact exist; credibility determinations reserved for a jury
Deliberate indifference/failure to intervene (Zimmer): whether administrative remedies were exhausted under PLRA	Manley: grievances put the prison on notice he requested removal and Zimmer failed to intervene	Defendants: Manley’s grievances disavowed prison or Zimmer liability and did not present the claim on the merits; grievance deadlines lapsed	Affirmed summary judgment for defendants — Manley failed to exhaust available remedies in the required manner and time
Procedural: whether district court should have stayed to permit exhaustion	Manley: district court could have stayed to allow exhaustion instead of entering judgment	Defendants: the grievance window had closed under ESP rule, so exhaustion was no longer available	Not reached as dispositive — exhaustion untimely, ruling on summary judgment was appropriate
Reassignment on remand: whether this case should be reassigned to a different judge	Manley: district judge’s comments indicate inability to set aside prior views; reassignment preserves appearance of justice	Defendants: district judge’s remarks were unusual but do not show inability to be fair on remand	Case remanded for reassignment — the court found the judge’s comments made reassignment necessary to preserve appearance of justice and avoid probable difficulty in setting aside prior views

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standards and admissible materials)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (credibility determinations and weighing evidence reserved for jury)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive force standard)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (PLRA exhaustion requires compliance with prison grievance procedures)
Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (exhaustion procedures defined by prison grievance process)
Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (PLRA exhaustion is mandatory)
Wolf Child, 699 F.3d 1082 (standards for reassignment on remand)
Krechman v. County of Riverside, 723 F.3d 1104 (reassignment factors and appearance of justice)
McSherry v. City of Long Beach, 423 F.3d 1015 (mere legal error does not warrant reassignment)