Tag Althof v. Michael Gower
676 F. App'x 720
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tag Edward Althof, a pro se prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment excessive force by prison officers during an escort/transport incident.
- Althof’s verified complaint and opposing affidavit described being slammed against a wall, having his arms lifted behind his back causing severe pain (with prior shoulder injury known to officers), tight leg restraints cutting into flesh, and resulting nerve damage and extreme pain.
- Defendants included five prison officials: Kittleson and Blachly (directly involved officers) and supervisors Gower, Premo, and Yoder.
- The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants, including qualified immunity for Kittleson and Blachly, and found no supervisory liability for Gower, Premo, and Yoder.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, affirmed summary judgment as to the supervisory defendants, but reversed as to Kittleson and Blachly and remanded for further proceedings on monetary damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether supervisors (Gower, Premo, Yoder) are liable under § 1983 | Supervisors failed to prevent or properly supervise the officers who used force | No evidence they participated in, directed, or knowingly failed to prevent the violations | Affirmed: plaintiff did not raise a genuine dispute on supervisory liability (Starr framework applies) |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on excessive force claim against Kittleson & Blachly | Force was malicious and sadistic: slammed to wall, painful arm restraint, tight leg restraints, resulting injuries | Officers’ account: force was necessary (e.g., plaintiff attempted to flee) supporting qualified immunity and no constitutional violation | Reversed: disputed, verified allegations create a genuine issue of material fact on malicious/sadistic use of force (Hudson standard) |
| Whether the district court could disregard statements in Althof’s verified complaint/affidavit | Verified complaint and affidavit are competent evidence creating genuine disputes | District court treated those statements as insufficient and granted summary judgment | Reversed as to Kittleson & Blachly: district court improperly disregarded verified statements; view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party (Furnace) |
| Whether qualified immunity shields Kittleson & Blachly | Althof argues the right was clearly established and factual disputes preclude immunity at summary judgment | Defendants argue reasonable officials would not have known their conduct violated clearly established law | Reversed: factual disputes make it unclear that every reasonable official would have known the conduct violated clearly established rights (Ashcroft v. al-Kidd standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir.) (supervisory liability standards for § 1983)
- Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir.) (summary judgment review and view of nonmoving party evidence)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (Eighth Amendment excessive force: maliciously and sadistically versus good-faith effort to maintain discipline)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (qualified immunity; clearly established rights standard)