980 F.3d 1292
9th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Jorge Andrade Rico was housed in Pelican Bay State Prison’s Security Housing Unit (SHU) and exposed to noise from the court-ordered Guard One welfare-check system implemented after Coleman supervision.
- Guard One required periodic in-cell visual checks recorded by touching a metal wand to metal discs; Pelican Bay’s circular, metal construction (metal pod doors, metal stairs, metal-on-metal contact) amplified noise.
- Checks initially occurred every 30 minutes at night (later reduced to hourly by court order for Pelican Bay); each round produced recurring loud sounds that woke inmates.
- Rico filed administrative grievances and Form 22 requests complaining of sleep deprivation and health harm; supervisory staff responded but declined alternative systems or leaving doors ajar.
- Rico sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim and named supervisory and floor officers; the district court denied qualified immunity for the supervisors and night-shift officer(s).
- On interlocutory appeal the Ninth Circuit reversed the denial, holding that no reasonable officer would have understood that complying with the court-ordered, inherently noisy welfare checks clearly violated the Eighth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Guard One checks and implementation deprived Rico of a constitutional right to sleep | Rico: recurring loud checks and guards’ haphazard execution caused prolonged sleep deprivation and health harms | Defendants: checks were suicide-prevention measures ordered by the Coleman court and not constitutionally unlawful | Court treated Rico’s factual allegations as true but concluded the legality of defendants’ conduct was not clearly established for qualified immunity purposes |
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because unlawfulness was not clearly established | Rico: existing precedent recognizes sleep as an "identifiable human need" and excess noise cases put officers on notice | Defendants: no controlling precedent placing beyond debate the illegality of carrying out court-ordered, inherently noisy checks in Pelican Bay’s unique facility | Court: granted qualified immunity — officials reasonably could believe compliance with court order was lawful |
| Whether supervisory officials are liable for failing to remedy the noise after complaints | Rico: supervisors were on notice from grievances and failed to train/stop staff, creating a causal chain | Defendants: they complied with Coleman court order, offered referrals/earplugs, and reasonably believed order lawful | Court: supervisors entitled to qualified immunity because carrying out court-ordered measures did not clearly violate rights |
| Whether floor officers’ alleged sloppy execution (running, hitting discs hard, multiple hits) negates immunity | Rico: officers’ extra noise was unnecessary and constituted deliberate indifference | Defendants: even sloppy implementation was a reasonable mistake while executing a mandatory, time-sensitive court order | Court: the factual allegations, even if true, do not show that every reasonable officer would know such conduct was clearly unlawful; qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577 (2018) (qualified-immunity two-step and ‘‘clearly established’’ standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (requirement that existing precedent place question beyond debate)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (discretion to decide which qualified-immunity prong to address first)
- Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015) (scope of clearly established law and reasonableness)
- Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (need for fact-specific, contextual analysis of clearly established law)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement framework)
- Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996) (prisoners have right to environment reasonably free of excess noise)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (reasonable mistake doctrine in qualified-immunity analysis)
- Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2019) (officer’s execution of court order and the reasonableness of investigating potential illegality)
- Lemire v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 726 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2013) (supervisory liability standards under § 1983)
- Sorrels v. McKee, 290 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2002) (limited precedential weight of unpublished district-court decisions in establishing clearly established law)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (obviousness of constitutional violations may overcome lack of case-on-point precedent)
- Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822 (2015) (no established right to perfect compliance with suicide-prevention protocols)