Michael Gaddy v. E.B. SHERMAN, Lieutenant;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL GADDY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E.B. SHERMAN, Lieutenant; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-16981
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-05568-PJH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 2, 2014**
Before: Gould, Berzon, and Bea, Circuit Judges
California state prisoner Michael Gaddy appeals pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment for prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging excessive force and retaliation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
DEC 12 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 1291. We review de novo, Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir.
2013), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gaddy’s excessive
force claim because Gaddy failed to raise a triable dispute as to whether defendants
applied force maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm.
Whatever precipitated the decision to search Gaddy’s cell, the video recording
documents that Gaddy did not comply with the Defendants’ orders to exit his cell
and submit to restraints. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994);
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986) (the core judicial inquiry is
whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or
maliciously and sadistically to cause harm); see also Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372,
378-80 (2007) (“when opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is
blatantly contradicted by the record [a video recording of the incident], so that no
reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts
for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”)
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Gaddy’s
retaliation claims because Gaddy failed to contradict by admissible evidence
defendants’ evidence that Gaddy and his cellmate had impermissibly covered the
windows of their cell on the day of the extractions, obstructing guards’ view of
13-16981 2

-- 2 of 3 --

their cell. Gaddy also failed to contradict by admissible evidence that his
television was confiscated because of his unpermitted modification of his
television. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (to prevail
on a retaliation claim, a prisoner must show that the protected conduct was the
substantial or motivating factor behind the defendant’s conduct).
AFFIRMED.
13-16981 3

-- 3 of 3 --