Sanchez v. Cook
1:18-cv-01034
D. Colo.Jun 25, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Chris Sanchez, a Colorado prison inmate, alleges CDOC officers tased, OC-sprayed, and struck him while shackled at Sterling Correctional Facility on May 23, 2017, causing eye injury and an asthma attack; he claims a medical order prohibited OC spray use on him and that officers denied his rescue inhaler.
- Sanchez sued Defendants Jones, Pescador, and Arguello under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Claims One and Two) and deliberate indifference (Claim Three); a Nurse Samantha is named but not part of this motion.
- CDOC Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (sovereign immunity) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity for official-capacity claims and qualified immunity for individual-capacity claims.
- The court treated Sanchez’s pro se amended complaint liberally but applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards and the qualified immunity framework.
- Ruling: the court dismissed monetary and retrospective injunctive claims against defendants in their official capacities (Eleventh Amendment), but denied dismissal of excessive force claims (Claims One/Two, construed together) against all three defendants in their individual capacities; it also denied dismissal of the deliberate indifference claim (Claim Three) against Pescador and Arguello in their individual capacities and allowed prospective injunctive relief claims to proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity for official-capacity monetary and retrospective injunctive relief | Sanchez seeks damages and employment-suspension/termination remedies against officers in official capacity | Defendants assert Eleventh Amendment bars such relief | Court: Eleventh Amendment bars money and retrospective injunctive relief against state officers in official capacity; prospective injunctive relief remains possible |
| Sufficiency of excessive force claims (Claims One & Two) | Alleged tasing, OC spray to face despite medical order, denial of inhaler, and punches/knees while shackled support Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim | Defendants say force was not malicious; plaintiff grabbed handcuffs and was noncompliant, so force was reasonable | Court: Taking allegations as true, plaintiff plausibly states excessive-force claim; qualified immunity denied at this stage |
| Sufficiency of deliberate indifference claim (Claim Three) | Officers violated medical order, sprayed him, caused/failed to treat asthma attack and withheld inhaler, amounting to deliberate indifference | Defendants contend no deliberate indifference; actions reasonable | Court: Allegations plausibly satisfy both objective (serious medical need) and subjective (conscious disregard) prongs; qualified immunity denied for Pescador and Arguello |
| Qualified immunity (individual-capacity defenses) | Sanchez argues alleged conduct was clearly unconstitutional and established law forbids such force/denial of care | Defendants claim immunity because law was not clearly established or conduct reasonable | Court: Existing Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent renders the alleged conduct clearly established in May 2017; defendants not entitled to qualified immunity at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (qualified immunity—prongs and sequence)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (excessive force; Eighth Amendment)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (use-of-force subjective inquiry)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (official-capacity/municipal liability principles)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (prospective injunctive relief exception to Eleventh Amendment)
- Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak & Circle Village, 501 U.S. 775 (Eleventh Amendment immunity principles)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (serious-injury rule and excessive force)
- Redmond v. Crowther, 882 F.3d 927 (10th Cir.) (excessive-force two-prong test)
- Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562 (10th Cir.) (force on restrained prisoner supports Eighth Amendment claim)
- Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir.) (deliberate indifference and denial/interference with treatment)