Kuznetsov v. Zamrrira, 2:20-cv-01942

Plaintiff Markian Kuznetsov, an ODOC inmate at Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution, sued four correctional officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force and failure to intervene arising from a September 7, 2019 escort/extraction.
During transfer to a recreation enclosure, Kuznetsov refused orders, sat down, and (per officers) kicked at officers while handcuffed and shackled at the ankles.
Officers Carlson and Bartell deployed brief bursts (2–3 seconds) of OC spray; Zamarripa retrieved a humane wrap and briefly placed a knee near Kuznetsov’s chest/face while securing her; officers then carried her to a holding cell.
Medical/incident reports and limited surveillance video show minor abrasions and eye irritation, continuous monitoring with no complications, and that Kuznetsov was conscious; no medical records corroborated plaintiff’s claims of losing consciousness or a cracked tooth.
Kuznetsov’s complaint was unverified and she failed to produce admissible opposing evidence despite extensions; defendants supported their motion with declarations and ODOC records.
The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding force was applied in a good-faith effort to restore discipline and Ortiz had no duty to intervene.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive force (Eighth Amendment)	Force was planned, malicious; plaintiff alleges punches, being slammed, loss of consciousness, broken tooth	Force was proportionate response to plaintiff’s refusal and assaultive kicking; used OC, humane wrap, brief knee to gain control	Granted for defendants — force was used in good faith to restore discipline, not maliciously/sadistically
Failure to intervene	Ortiz stood by and did nothing while plaintiff was assaulted	No duty because no excessive force occurred; Ortiz had no reason to intervene	Granted for Ortiz — no excessive force, so no intervening liability
Procedural / Evidentiary (summary judgment opposition)	Kuznetsov filed pro se responses and sought counsel/extensions but submitted no admissible exhibits or a verified complaint	Defendants submitted declarations, incident and medical records; movant met Rule 56 burden	Court treated defendants’ evidence as undisputed; plaintiff failed to raise a genuine factual dispute — summary judgment appropriate

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (Eighth Amendment excessive-force standard)
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (force must be applied in good-faith to maintain discipline or be malicious/sadistic)
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (subjective state-of-mind standard; intent to inflict pain not required)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference/medical care context cited)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (use-of-force analysis under tense, split-second judgments)
Marquez v. Gutierrez, 322 F.3d 689 (factors for evaluating prison force)
Clement v. Gomez, 298 F.3d 898 (good-faith/restoring-discipline analysis)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (no genuine issue where record cannot support nonmoving party)
Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (pro se litigants held to same summary judgment standards)
Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436 (failure-to-intervene liability in prison settings)