(PC) Emery v. Harris, 1:10-cv-01947

Plaintiff Steven C. Emery, a state prisoner, sues Officer Michael Harris under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force during an attempted cuffing incident.
The incident occurred while Emery was detained at SATF; two prior RVRs and a transfer to Administrative Segregation are noted.
Defendant Harris allegedly restrained Emery after a verbal disagreement; Emery alleges physical beating after being cuffed.
Responding officers later restrained Emery with pepper spray and batons; Emery suffered alleged rib fractures, bruises, and ongoing pain.
Defendant moved for summary judgment on Oct. 19, 2012; Emery opposed on Nov. 15, 2012; the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations.
The court determines disputes over material facts preclude summary judgment on excessive force and denies qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment	Emery contends force was malicious and excessive	Harris argues force was a reasonable response to a threat	Disputed facts; summary judgment denied on excessive force.
Whether Harris is entitled to qualified immunity	Rights were clearly established at the time	No clear established right applicable to facts	Qualified immunity denied; rights were clearly established.

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (core inquiry: good-faith force vs. malicious harm; de minimis force not actionable when not repugnant to conscience)
Oliver v. Keller, 289 F.3d 623 (9th Cir. 2002) (contextual, not de minimis injuries; excess force standard evaluates force vs. need)
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-prong qualified immunity analysis; initial factual violation plus clearly established right)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (acknowledges flexibility in prong order of qualified immunity analysis)
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1986) (clearly established rights in excessive force context)
Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1986) (limits on entitlements to discovery of immunity defenses)