Ivan Matthews v. S. Puckett
670 F. App'x 964
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Ivan Lee Matthews, a California state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming: deliberate indifference to safety, excessive force, and retaliation by prison officials.
- Defendants named included Black, Urena, Bonilla, and Puckett; district court granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed claims against Puckett for failure to state a claim.
- Matthews proceeded pro se and moved for appointment of counsel and for an additional copy of his deposition transcript; both requests were denied by the district court.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the grant of summary judgment and Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and considered whether Matthews raised genuine disputes of material fact or pleaded plausible claims.
- The panel affirmed: summary judgment on the deliberate indifference, excessive force, and retaliation claims; dismissal of Puckett; and denial of Matthews’ motions for counsel and additional deposition copy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberate indifference to safety | Matthews argued defendants knew of threats/risks to his safety and failed to protect him | Defendants argued no evidence they knew of and disregarded an excessive risk | Summary judgment for defendants — Matthews failed to show defendants knew and disregarded a risk (Farmer standard) |
| Excessive force | Matthews alleged Urena and Bonilla used force against him unlawfully | Defendants argued force was not used maliciously and sadistically to cause harm | Summary judgment for defendants — no genuine dispute that force was malicious/sadistic (Hudson standard) |
| Retaliation (First Amendment) | Matthews claimed adverse actions were taken in retaliation for protected conduct | Defendants argued actions were not motivated by protected conduct or were not adverse | Summary judgment for defendants — Matthews failed to show adverse action causally linked to protected conduct (Rhodes elements) |
| Dismissal of claims against Puckett | Matthews contended Puckett was deliberately indifferent and retaliatory | Defendants argued Matthews failed to plead plausible facts against Puckett | Dismissal affirmed — pleadings insufficient to state plausible Eighth or First Amendment claims |
| Appointment of counsel & additional deposition copy | Matthews requested counsel and a free copy of his deposition transcript | Defendants argued no exceptional circumstances for counsel; discovery costs borne by party | Denials affirmed — no exceptional circumstances for counsel; plaintiff must pay deposition copy fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference requires knowledge and disregard of excessive risk)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Excessive force claim requires malicious and sadistic intent to cause harm)
- Lemire v. California Dep't of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d 1062 (standard of review for summary judgment in prisoner civil-rights cases)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (pro se pleadings liberally construed but must plead plausible claims)
- Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context)
- Garneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802 (standard for appeals reviewing discovery cost rulings)
- Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (public funds not authorized for indigent litigants' discovery fees)
- Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965 (appointment of counsel in prisoner cases requires exceptional circumstances)
- Andersen v. Cumming, 827 F.2d 1303 (appellate courts do not consider matters not presented to the district court)