Ross v. Palacios et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAYVION ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v.
N. PALACIOS, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00640-JST
ORDER DENIYING DEFENDANTS
HERNANDEZ AND JUAREZ’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; REFERRING CASE TO
PRO SE PRISONER MEDIATION
PROGRAM; ADMINISTRATVELY
CLOSING ACTION; DIRECTIONS TO
CLERK
Re: ECF No. 56
Plaintiff, an inmate at Calipatria State Prison, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) correctional officers Tanori,
Palacios, Juarez, Dominguez, Guijarro, Corona, Avina, and Hernandez used excessive force on
him on April 24, 2021, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Now pending before the Court is
Defendants Hernandez and Juarez’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 56. Plaintiff has not
filed an opposition, and the deadline to do has since passed. For the reasons set forth below, the
Court DENIES Defendants Hernandez and Juarez’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 56.
DISCUSSION
I. Procedural Background
The complaint alleges that Salinas Valley State Prison correctional officers Tanori,
Palacios, Juarez, Dominguez, Guijarro, Corona, Avina, and Hernandez used excessive force on
Plaintiff on April 24, 2021, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The complaint requests the
following relief: $500,000 in compensatory damages, $1 million in punitive damages, and
$250,000 in nominal damages from each defendant; an order requiring expungement of the April
Case 4:23-cv-00640-JST Document 57 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 7

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
24, 2021 rules violation report; an injunction prohibiting Defendants from further use of
unreasonable, excessive force, and from issuing false writeups or disciplinary violation reports to
inmates who request to speak with sergeants or other CDCR employees; and an order requiring the
CDCR to diversify its staff and assign “equal African American CDCR employees to work as
officers at SVSP Facility C.” See generally ECF No. 1.
On September 29, 2025, the Court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion seeking
to dismiss Defendant Avina from this action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and
seeking to dismiss the injunctive relief claims. ECF Nos. 27, 50. At that time, the remaining
claim in this action was that Defendants Tanori, Palacios, Juarez, Dominguez, Guijarro, Corona,
and Hernandez used excessive force on Plaintiff on April 24, 2021. ECF No. 50 at 15.
II. Defendants Hernandez and Juarez’s Summary Judgment Motion
A. Factual Background
Plaintiff’s Version of Events. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the summary judgment
motion. The Court’s summary of Plaintiff’s version of the relevant events is therefore taken from
the complaint and the portion of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony that Defendants filed with their
summary judgment motion. On April 24, 2021, Plaintiff asked to speak to a facility sergeant
regarding making an approved phone call. In response to this request, the unit officer sent
Defendant Palacios into the pod. Plaintiff repeated his request to see a facility sergeant to
Defendant Palacios. Defendant Palacios told Plaintiff, “Fuck you,” and activated the emergency
alarm on his belt, which caused Defendants Tanori, Correa, Alvarez, Dominguez, Gujarro, and
Avina to rush Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff was not behaving in an aggressive or threatening
manner, these defendants proceeded to hit him. Defendants Palacios and Tanori grabbed Plaintiff,
and Defendant Tanori kicked Plaintiff in the right knee. Plaintiff fell to the ground, and
Defendants Palacios, Tanori, Hernandez, Guijarro, Dominguez, Corona, and Juarez started beating
him, punching his face and body, and placing their knees on his neck and almost cutting off
Plaintiff’s air circulation. See generally ECF No. 1. When asked at his deposition about
Defendant Hernandez’s involvement in the incident, Plaintiff responded as follows:
/ / /
Case 4:23-cv-00640-JST Document 57 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 7

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Q: Okay. Do you recall approximately how many times you were punched in the
face?
A: No.
Q: Okay. And let’s see. With Officer Hernandez, do you know where he was placed
around your body at the time?
A: No.
Q: Okay. And was he punching?
A: Hernandez – like I said in my interrogatories, he was responsible because, as a CO,
he was supposed to defuse the situation; did not.
ECF No. 56-1 at 18.
Defendants Hernandez and Juarez’s Version of Events. On April 24, 2021, Plaintiff
refused Defendants Palacio and Juarez’s instruction to return to his cell. Defendant Palacios then
ordered Plaintiff to submit to handcuffs, and Plaintiff again refused. When staff attempted to
handcuff Plaintiff, he again resisted. Staff took Plaintiff to the ground, and Defendants Palacios
and Guijarro attempted to apply mechanical restraints while Plaintiff resisted by pulling his arms
away from them. Defendants Hernandez and Juarez were supervising recreational morning yard
when a Code 1 alarm was issued for a resistive inmate in C1 A-Pod. Defendants Hernandez and
Juarez proceeded to C1 A-Pod where they observed Plaintiff on the dayroom floor in front of the
dayroom shower, resisting Defendants Palacios and Guijarro’s attempts to gain control of his
arms, resisting Defendants Palacios and Guijarro’s attempts to apply mechanical restraints to his
hands, and refusing to comply with verbal commands to submit to handcuffs and cease resistive
behavior. Defendant Hernandez gave Plaintiff verbal commands to place his hands behind his
back and submit to handcuffs, but Plaintiff did not comply. Plaintiff began to kick his legs
violently in an up-and-down order. In order to overcome Plaintiff’s resistance, force Plaintiff’s
compliance, and gain control of Plaintiff’s right leg, Defendant Hernandez placed his hands on
Plaintiff’s calf and pushed it down. Defendant Hernandez denies using any other force on
Plaintiff, and denies punching or kicking Plaintiff. Defendant Juarez states that he did not apply
any force to Plaintiff, and that he was instead involved with applying leg irons to a different
inmate, inmate Johnson, who had refused orders to get down and assume a prone position. ECF
No. 56-1 at 9-13.
Case 4:23-cv-00640-JST Document 57 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 7

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
B. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there
is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the outcome of the case.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is
genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
party. See id.
A court shall grant summary judgment “against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
party will bear the burden of proof at trial [,] . . . since a complete failure of proof concerning an
essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). The moving party bears the initial
burden of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue
of material fact. Id. at 323. The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party to “go beyond the
pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or by the ‘depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, ‘designate ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” See
id. at 324 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)). “A scintilla of evidence or evidence that is merely
colorable or not significantly probative does not present a genuine issue of material fact”
precluding summary judgment. See Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir.
2000).
For purposes of summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party, drawing all justifiable inferences in that party’s favor. AXIS
Reinsurance Co. v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 975 F.3d 840, 844 (9th Cir. 2020). If, as to any
given material fact, evidence produced by the moving party conflicts with evidence produced by
the nonmoving party, the Court must assume the truth of the evidence set forth by the nonmoving
party with respect to that material fact. Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013).
However, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is
a “genuine” dispute as to those facts. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). The court’s
Case 4:23-cv-00640-JST Document 57 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 7

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
function on a summary judgment motion is not to make credibility determinations or weigh
conflicting evidence. Manley v. Rowley, 847 F.3d 705, 711 (9th Cir. 2017).
C. Legal Standard for Excessive Force Claim
The treatment a convicted prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is
confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25,
31 (1993). “After incarceration, only the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes
cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by the Eighth Amendment.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S.
312, 319 (1986) (ellipsis in original) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Whenever prison
officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment,
the core judicial determination is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or
restore discipline, or was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 317 (1986)). In making
this determination, a court may evaluate the need for application of force; the relationship between
that need and the amount of force used; the extent of any injury inflicted; the threat reasonably
perceived by the responsible officials; and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful
response. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7; see also Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 195 (9th Cir.
1979) (guards may use force only in proportion to need in each situation).
D. Analysis
Defendant Juarez argues that he is entitled to summary judgment because he did not apply
any force to Plaintiff. Defendant Hernandez argues that he is entitled to summary judgment
because he did not apply force maliciously or sadistically or for the purpose of causing harm, and
that the force that he used was limited to holding down Plaintiff’s leg while Plaintiff was resisting
the application of restraints by other officers. In the alternative, Defendant Hernandez argues that
he is entitled to qualified immunity because he applied force in a good faith effort to maintain
order and discipline.
With respect to Defendant Juarez, there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether he
applied force to Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the summary judgment
motion, he also has not withdrawn the statement made in his complaint alleging that he was
Case 4:23-cv-00640-JST Document 57 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 7

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
neither resisting nor behaving aggressively, yet Defendant Juarez and other defendants beat him,
punched his face and body, and placed their knees on his neck, almost cutting off his air
circulation. At summary judgment, the Court cannot make credibility determinations. Because
the parties offer competing versions of Defendant Juarez’s involvement in the events on April 24,
2021, the Court DENIES Defendant Juarez’s request for summary judgment.
With respect to Defendant Hernandez, because the parties offer competing versions of
Defendant Hernandez’s involvement in the events on April 24, 2021, there remains a triable issue
of material fact as to whether Defendant Hernandez applied excessive force to Plaintiff in
violation of the Eighth Amendment and precludes the application of qualified immunity.
Although Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the summary judgment motion, he also has not
withdrawn the statement made in his complaint alleging that he was neither resisting nor behaving
aggressively, yet Defendant Hernandez and other defendants beat him, punched his face and body,
and placed their knees on his neck, almost cutting off his air circulation. Plaintiff’s deposition
response to the question of whether Defendant Hernandez was punching him does not clearly
disavow or contradict the allegations regarding Defendant Hernandez made in the complaint. At
summary judgment, the Court cannot make credibility determinations and must assume the truth
of Plaintiff’s version of events. If Plaintiff’s version of events is true, Defendant Hernandez is not
entitled to qualified immunity. To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity,
the Court must consider whether (1) the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2)
that right was clearly established at the time of officer’s misconduct. Pearson v. Callahan, 555
U.S. 223, 232 (2009). Plaintiff has alleged the force used by defendants, including Defendant
Hernandez, was applied maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm, as he
was neither resisting nor combative. As of April 24, 2021, it was clearly established law in the
Ninth Circuit that the Eighth Amendment is violated when the force used to quell a prison
disturbance is applied “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm,” and not
in a good faith effort to restore or maintain discipline. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992).
If Plaintiff’s version of events is true, then Defendant Hernandez is not entitled to qualified
immunity. The Court therefore DENIES Defendant Hernandez’s request for summary judgment.
Case 4:23-cv-00640-JST Document 57 Filed 02/23/26 Page 6 of 7

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS as follows.
1. The Court DENIES Defendants Hernandez and Juarez’s motion for summary
judgment. ECF No. 56.
2. Defendants have informed the Court that the claims against Defendants Palacios,
Corona, Guijarro, and Dominguez cannot be resolved through a dispositive motion. ECF No. 55.
Accordingly, the claim remaining in this action is that Defendants Tanori, Palacios, Juarez,
Dominguez, Guijarro, Corona, and Hernandez used excessive force on Plaintiff on April 24, 2021.
3. The case is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert Illman for settlement
proceedings pursuant to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation Program. Such proceedings shall take
place within 120 days of the date this order is filed, or as soon thereafter as Magistrate Judge
Illman’s calendar permits. Magistrate Judge Illman shall coordinate a place, time and date for one
or more settlement conferences with all interested parties and/or their representatives and, within
fifteen days of the conclusion of all settlement proceedings, shall file with the Court a report
thereon. The Clerk is directed to serve Magistrate Judge Illman with a copy of this order and to
notify Magistrate Judge Illman that a copy of the Court file can be retrieved from the Court’s
electronic filing database.
4. In view of the referral, the Court ORDERS the Clerk to administratively close this
action. If the case is not settled, the Court will reopen this action and enter a new scheduling order
for further proceedings.
This order terminates ECF No. 56.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:23-cv-00640-JST Document 57 Filed 02/23/26 Page 7 of 7