explaining that complaints must sufficiently allege which defendant did what
How later courts described this case
- explaining that complaints must sufficiently allege which defendant did what
- holding that dismissal based on qualified immunity is appropriate only where “we can determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified immunity applies”
- delineating where “team effort” assertions are inappropriate
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 2 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REGINALD C. HOWARD, No. 24-400
D.C. No.
Plaintiff - Appellee, 3:20-cv-00588-ART-CSD
v. MEMORANDUM*
WILLIAM L. GITTERE; DAVID
DRUMMOND; JESSE COX; MATHEW
NORIEGA; MIGUEL ESCAMILLA;
KELVIN CHUNG; CURTIS KERNER,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
KERCHEN, MALLINGER,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Anne R. Traum, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted May 20, 2025
San Francisco, California
Before: BERZON, FRIEDLAND, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Plaintiff-Appellee Reginald Howard filed a handwritten complaint against
prison officials, asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the
Eighth Amendment. Defendants-Appellants appeal the district court’s denial of
their motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. We have jurisdiction over
this interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Hyde v. Willcox, 23
F.4th 863, 869 (9th Cir. 2022). We review the denial of a motion to dismiss under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo. Id. We accept all well-pleaded
allegations of material fact as true and construe them in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party. Id. Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(6) if a
complaint “fails to include ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
We affirm.
1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claimants “must show that each defendant
personally played a role in violating the Constitution.” Hines v. Youseff, 914 F.3d
1218, 1228 (9th Cir. 2019). Howard alleges that he “was taken from [his] cell and
than [sic] placed in a shower cage. For over eight hours, Plaintiff complained to
[Defendants Noriega, Chung, and Escamilla (hereinafter “the COs”)].”
Defendants-Appellants read the complaint differently, insisting that Howard
alleges only that he was “placed in a shower case for over eight hours” and then,
later, “complained to [the COs].” We must “construe pro se complaints liberally,
2 24-400
especially in civil rights cases.” Litmon v. Harris, 768 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.
2014). We accordingly read the complaint to assert that Howard complained to the
COs for over eight hours.
The alleged deprivation is one of deliberate indifference to the inhumane
conditions of Howard’s confinement. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832
(1994). The allegation that the COs ignored Howard’s pleas for eight hours is
sufficient to demonstrate their personal participation in depriving Howard of a
constitutional right. See Castro v. County of Los Angles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1071 (9th
Cir. 2016) (en banc) (holding that prison officials may be held liable where they
“know[] of and disregard[] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety” (quoting
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837)).
There is no deficiency in the manner in which Howard’s complaint “groups”
or “lumps” the COs. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th Cir.
1996) (explaining that complaints must sufficiently allege which defendant did
what); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 936 (9th Cir. 2002) (delineating where
“team effort” assertions are inappropriate). Howard sufficiently “allege[s] facts
which demonstrate that [] particular prison official[s] [were] the actual and
proximate cause of [the] constitutional violation.” Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628,
633–34 (9th Cir. 1988).
3 24-400
2. Eighth Amendment claimants must demonstrate that the defendant
“acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Johnson v. Lewis, 217 F.3d 726,
731 (9th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up). “[T]hat state of mind is one of deliberate
indifference to inmate health or safety.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 834 (cleaned up).
Defendants-Appellants argue that Howard fails to allege that the COs were aware
of the conditions at issue or that they knew of his need to be relieved from them.
As explained above, Howard alleges that he complained to the COs for over eight
hours. Making all reasonable inferences in his favor, Howard alleges that he was
in pain and on crutches; that he was kept in a small and unsanitary space for eight
hours; and that he told the COs that he needed medication, water, food, and use of
a bathroom. Id. at 834. Either upon hearing his pleas or upon witnessing the
conditions firsthand, the COs were aware of and chose to ignore those inhumane
conditions.
3. An Eighth Amendment plaintiff must also “make an objective
showing that the deprivation was sufficiently serious to form the basis for an
Eighth Amendment violation.” Id. at 731 (cleaned up). Further, “[q]ualified
immunity shields government officials under § 1983 unless . . . the unlawfulness of
their conduct was clearly established at the time.” Rico v. Ducart, 980 F.3d 1292,
1298 (9th Cir. 2020) (cleaned up).
4 24-400
In Hope v. Pelzer, the Supreme Court found an “obvious” violation where an
inmate was hitched to a post with arms raised for seven hours, in the sun, was
allowed water only once or twice, and was denied bathroom breaks. 536 U.S. 730,
734–35 (2002). The Court held that it is clearly established that although
penological interests can justify the temporary imposition of severe or poor
conditions, such conditions are unconstitutional when imposed without penological
reason. Id. at 738. Although Howard’s detention in the shower cage may have
been justified at first, we discern no penological justification from the complaint
for extending that detention to eight hours, all the while denying him medication,
food, water, and use of a restroom. See Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754, 765
(9th Cir. 2023) (holding that dismissal based on qualified immunity is appropriate
only where “we can determine, based on the complaint itself, that qualified
immunity applies”). Qualified immunity is denied.
WE AFFIRM.1
1
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee appeared before us pursuant to the Ninth
Circuit’s pro bono program. The panel extends its thanks to counsel for
participating in the program and representing Plaintiff-Appellee in this case.
5 24-400