×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Prisoner Stated Excessive Force Claim; Liberal Construction Applied to Pleadings
Prisoner Stated Excessive Force Claim; Liberal Construction Applied to
Pleadings
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prisoner who checked a
box marked "Excessive force by an officer" sufficiently stated a claim for
relief in a civil rights complaint.
Nathaniel Turner, Jr., an Arizona prisoner, sued three state prison guards
named Terry, Masterson and Kirkham under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Turner claimed
that Masterson violated his due process rights by seizing his stereo, that
Masterson and Terry retaliated against him concerning the loss of his
stereo, and that Kirkham caused him to suffer cruel and unusual punishment
by applying handcuffs that were too tight. In his First Amended Complaint,
Turner checked a box under Count II of the complaint marked "Excessive
force by an officer."
The district court dismissed the claims against Masterson and Terry and
granted summary judgment to Kirkham. The court declined to address
Turner's "excessive force" claim. Turner appealed.
The appeals court did not recite the facts of the case. The court held,
though, that the retaliation claims against Masterson and Terry were
properly dismissed "because Turner failed to allege that the retaliatory
actions advanced no legitimate penological goal." Further,"[t]he due
process claims were properly dismissed because Turner has an adequate post-
deprivation remedy under Arizona law."
Summary judgment, however, was inappropriate. Under the liberal
construction that pro se plaintiffs' pleadings must be given, Turner
adequately pleaded excessive force merely by checking the box "Excessive
force by an officer." The district court erred in granting summary
judgment without addressing this claim.
The district court's judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part and
remanded for further proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own
costs. This is not a ruling on the merits of the surviving claim. This
case is published in the Federal Appendix and is subject to rules
governing unpublished cases. See: Turner v. D.Z. Terry, CO III, 58
Fed.Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2003).
Pleadings
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a prisoner who checked a
box marked "Excessive force by an officer" sufficiently stated a claim for
relief in a civil rights complaint.
Nathaniel Turner, Jr., an Arizona prisoner, sued three state prison guards
named Terry, Masterson and Kirkham under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Turner claimed
that Masterson violated his due process rights by seizing his stereo, that
Masterson and Terry retaliated against him concerning the loss of his
stereo, and that Kirkham caused him to suffer cruel and unusual punishment
by applying handcuffs that were too tight. In his First Amended Complaint,
Turner checked a box under Count II of the complaint marked "Excessive
force by an officer."
The district court dismissed the claims against Masterson and Terry and
granted summary judgment to Kirkham. The court declined to address
Turner's "excessive force" claim. Turner appealed.
The appeals court did not recite the facts of the case. The court held,
though, that the retaliation claims against Masterson and Terry were
properly dismissed "because Turner failed to allege that the retaliatory
actions advanced no legitimate penological goal." Further,"[t]he due
process claims were properly dismissed because Turner has an adequate post-
deprivation remedy under Arizona law."
Summary judgment, however, was inappropriate. Under the liberal
construction that pro se plaintiffs' pleadings must be given, Turner
adequately pleaded excessive force merely by checking the box "Excessive
force by an officer." The district court erred in granting summary
judgment without addressing this claim.
The district court's judgment was affirmed in part, vacated in part and
remanded for further proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own
costs. This is not a ruling on the merits of the surviving claim. This
case is published in the Federal Appendix and is subject to rules
governing unpublished cases. See: Turner v. D.Z. Terry, CO III, 58
Fed.Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Turner v. D.Z. Terry, CO III,
| Year | 2003 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 58 Fed.Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2003) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |
NATHANIEL TURNER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. D.Z. TERRY, CO. III, sued in individual & official capacity, et al., Defendants - Appellees.
No. 01-17289
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
58 Fed. Appx. 324; 2003 U.S. App.
February 12, 2003 **, Submitted, San Francisco, California
** This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
March 6, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-00-00018-SMM. Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
COUNSEL: NATHANIEL TURNER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Florence, AZ.
For D Z TERRY, CO. III, B. KIRKHAM, CO, Defendants - Appellees: Susanna Carballo Pineda, DAG, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Phoenix, AZ.
JUDGES: Before: BEEZER, THOMAS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*324] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
In this prisoner suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Nathaniel Turner alleges [*325] (1) that Masterson and Terry retaliated against [**2] him concerning the loss of his stereo, (2) that Masterson violated due process in seizing his stereo, and (3) that Kirkham cruelly and unusually punished him by applying handcuffs that were too small. The district court dismissed all claims against Masterson and Terry and granted summary judgment for Kirkham. We affirm the district court's dismissal of the claims against Masterson and Terry. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for Kirkham.
As the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of the claims against Masterson and Terry. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). The retaliation claims properly were dismissed because Terry failed to allege that the retaliatory actions advanced no legitimate penological goal. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994). The due process claims were properly dismissed because Terry has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Arizona law. See id. at 816; Howland v. State, 169 Ariz. 293, 818 P.2d 1169, 1172-73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). [**3]
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 815. In his First Amended Complaint, Turner checked the box for "Excessive force by an officer" in describing count II. This sufficed to plead an excessive force claim under the liberal construction we afford pro se complaints. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). Because Turner pled a claim for excessive force, the district court erred by declining to consider that claim. Summary judgment was inappropriate. We remand to the district court for further proceedings on that claim. Each party shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
No. 01-17289
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
58 Fed. Appx. 324; 2003 U.S. App.
February 12, 2003 **, Submitted, San Francisco, California
** This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
March 6, 2003, Filed
NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. D.C. No. CV-00-00018-SMM. Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
COUNSEL: NATHANIEL TURNER, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Florence, AZ.
For D Z TERRY, CO. III, B. KIRKHAM, CO, Defendants - Appellees: Susanna Carballo Pineda, DAG, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Phoenix, AZ.
JUDGES: Before: BEEZER, THOMAS, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
OPINION:
[*324] MEMORANDUM *
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
In this prisoner suit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Nathaniel Turner alleges [*325] (1) that Masterson and Terry retaliated against [**2] him concerning the loss of his stereo, (2) that Masterson violated due process in seizing his stereo, and (3) that Kirkham cruelly and unusually punished him by applying handcuffs that were too small. The district court dismissed all claims against Masterson and Terry and granted summary judgment for Kirkham. We affirm the district court's dismissal of the claims against Masterson and Terry. We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment for Kirkham.
As the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite them only as necessary. We review de novo the district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of the claims against Masterson and Terry. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). The retaliation claims properly were dismissed because Terry failed to allege that the retaliatory actions advanced no legitimate penological goal. See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1994). The due process claims were properly dismissed because Terry has an adequate post-deprivation remedy under Arizona law. See id. at 816; Howland v. State, 169 Ariz. 293, 818 P.2d 1169, 1172-73 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). [**3]
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Barnett, 31 F.3d at 815. In his First Amended Complaint, Turner checked the box for "Excessive force by an officer" in describing count II. This sufficed to plead an excessive force claim under the liberal construction we afford pro se complaints. See Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9th Cir. 1987). Because Turner pled a claim for excessive force, the district court erred by declining to consider that claim. Summary judgment was inappropriate. We remand to the district court for further proceedings on that claim. Each party shall bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.