The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 MUJAAHID F. HARRIS, Case No.: 1:23-cv-01502 JLT EPG (PC)
11 Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
12 v. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
13 O. VALLADOLID, et al., JUDGMENT
14 Defendants. (Docs. 79, 94)
15
16 Plaintiff seeks to hold defendants liable for violations of his civil rights. This matter was
17 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
18 302. The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to deny Defendants’ summary
19 judgment motion. (Doc. 94.) Defendants objected to the findings and recommendations (Doc.
20 95) and plaintiff responded to defendants’ objections (Doc. 96). The Court has renewed the
21 matter de novo.
22 The Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.
23 When the evidence is taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as it must be at this stage, it
24 would permit a reasonable jury to decide that the defendant officers acted maliciously and failed
25 to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 94 at 18–19); see also Hudson v.
26 McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6–7 (1992) (discussing relevant legal standards); Whitley v. Albers, 475
27 U.S. 312, 320–21 (1986) (same); Bearchild v. Cobban, 947 F.3d 1130, 1140–41 (9th Cir. 2020)
(same).
1 The officers rely heavily on the argument that their actions were a constitutional attempt
2 to secure plaintiff’s compliance with their orders. (See, e.g., Doc. 95 at 4.) They argue similarly
3 that his refusal to comply created an “emergency” that justified additional force. (See id.) These
4 arguments assume their own conclusions. Plaintiff is exempted from behind-the-back
5 handcuffing because of a previous injury. That much is undisputed. And yet, in the officers’
6 telling, plaintiff’s reliance on this exemption is both the reason they were justified in forcing his
7 hands behind his back and the source of the “emergency” that justifies their decision to force his
8 hands behind his back. (See id. at 3–5.)
9 In any event, a jury could reasonably find that plaintiff was exempt from behind-the-back
10 handcuffing; that he told the officers about this exemption; that there was no reason for them to
11 disbelieve him; that he refused to put his hands at his sides or behind his back because he was
12 physically unable to do so; and that the officers nevertheless demanded his compliance and forced
13 him to comply, exacerbating his injury. (See Doc. 94 at 18–19.) A jury could also reasonably
14 decide that the officers had plaintiff firmly under their control, such that there was no
15 “emergency.” He was prone on the ground, where several officers were holding him. (See id. at
16 18.) It would be reasonable to find that he posed no danger to anyone. (See id.) These findings
17 would permit a reasonable jury to find that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment by
18 acting maliciously and with an intent to cause harm and not in a good faith attempt to maintain
19 order.
20 The magistrate judge correctly recommends denying summary judgment despite the
21 officers’ assertion of qualified immunity as well. The Court must take the evidence in the light
22 most favorable to plaintiff, including when it determines whether the relevant law was clearly
23 established. Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656–57 (2014); Martinez v. Stanford, 323 F.3d 1178,
24 1184 (9th Cir. 2003). Taking the evidence in that light would show the officers acted maliciously
25 and intended to harm plaintiff by forcing his hands behind his back, as summarized above.
26 “Since 1992, the legal standard articulated in Hudson has provided officers with ample notice that
27 malicious or sadistic use of force is unlawful.” Alexander v. Perez, 124 F. App’x 525, 526 (9th
1 } (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (same); Fugawa v. Dearmond, 718 F. App’x 550, 551 (9th Cir.
2 | 2018) (unpublished) (same); Covington v. Fairman, 123 F. App’x 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2004)
3 | (unpublished) (same); Martinez, 323 F.3d at 1183 (same); see also Hoard v. Hartman, 904 F.3d
4 | 780, 790 (9th Cir. 2018) (colleting authority). The “gratuitous infliction of punishment is
5 | unconstitutional, even in the prison context.” Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 748 (2002). That is
6 | true “even in novel factual circumstances.” /d. at 741. An officer is not entitled to qualified
7 | immunity at summary judgment if, under a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, “any
8 || reasonable officer should have realized that [his actions] offended the Constitution.” Taylor v.
9 | Riojas, 592 U.S. 7, 9 (2020) (per curiam). That would be the situation here, assuming a jury
10 | accepted plaintiffs version of the events.
11 The officers are of course entitled to an opportunity to prove that they acted reasonably
12 | and that plaintiff is not to be trusted, but they must do this at trial. See, e.g., Weldeyohannes v.
13 | Washington, 162 F.4th 972, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2025) (reversing grant of qualified immunity in
14 | prison use-of-force dispute “because factual disputes remain about the [defendants’] conduct that
15 || may impact whether the unlawfulness was clearly established at the time” (citation and quotation
16 | marks omitted)).
17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
18 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued April 17, 2026 (Doc. 94) are ADOPTED
19 in full.
20 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 79) is DENIED.
21 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge.
22
23 | IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: _July 10, 2026_ ears [Tourn
25 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28