Kevin Lisle v. E. McDaniels
681 F. App'x 611
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Lisle is an Ely State Prison inmate appealing a district court grant of summary judgment to defendants on due process and excessive force claims and denial of a preliminary injunction regarding a cell transfer.
- Statute of limitations bars Lisle’s HRP-related claims from 1996–2001; Nevada allows a two-year SOL for §1983 actions and the HRP status ceased to be a continuing violation when removed on March 22, 2001.
- CMU placement and current HRP status claims are analyzed for qualified immunity; Lisle’s CMU placement reflects death-sentenced inmates’ housing and does not create atypical hardship; Lisle received notice and periodic reviews for HRP status.
- HRP status reinstated in 2002 after Lisle assaulted a fellow inmate; Lisle knew to stay discipline-free for a year and received periodic reviews and status hearings as provided by Ely procedures.
- The excessive force claim is resolved via Hudson v. McMillian framework; Lisle was not injured, and force was argued to be for discipline, not retaliation; the district court’s analysis was upheld.
- The district court properly denied Lisle’s preliminary injunction as to conduct unrelated to the underlying lawsuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations on HRP claims | Lisle argues continuing violations toll the SOL | HRP status removal in 2001 ends continuing violations | Barred by SOL |
| CMU and HRP due process rights | Rights were violated by placement and status | No due process violation; qualified immunity applies | Qualified immunity; no violation |
| Excessive force claim | Force used was excessive and unnecessary | Force was for disciplinary purposes; no injury | No actionable excessive force; district court affirmed |
| Preliminary injunction against transfer | Injunction necessary to protect rights | Unrelated conduct; insufficient basis for injunction | District court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (inmate's loss of liberty does not require due process in routine conditions)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (U.S. 1983) (due process in prison admin; notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (core inquiry: whether force was applied in good faith or maliciously)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity when right not clearly established)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step approach to qualified immunity (often superseded))
- Gutowsky v. County of Placer, 108 F.3d 256 (9th Cir. 1997) (continuing violation theory in §1983 actions)
- Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2001) (continuing violation concept in 9th Cir.)