In Bell v. Williams, published July 18, 2024, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment after jury verdict for a prisoner in a suit under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Americans with Disability Act/Rehabilitation Act. The prisoner plaintiff was an amputee, his right leg amputated above the knee. The defendant sergeant at the jail where the plaintiff was imprisoned ordered the plaintiff extracted from his cell. She further ordered that the plaintiff not be issued a wheelchair or other mobility device. Instead, she required him to hop on one leg, which was against jail policy and the medical instructions for the plaintiff. She then had guards carry him. The plaintiff testified to pain of 9.5 out of 10 during the hopping, including pain in his shoulder from supporting himself on guards. He felt something "pop" in his shoulder, and felt pain afterward. Before trial, the district court found the guards except the sergeant were entitled to qualified immunity, but ruled that there were triable issues of fact as to the sergeant's qualified immunity. A jury found that the sergeant used excessive force, and violated the plaintiff's rights under the 14th Amendment and the ADA/RA. It further found that the jailing entity was liable under a Monell theory of failure to train. It awarded damages of $504,000.
The 9th Circuit ruled that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict that the sergeant violated the 14th amendment. The requirement that the plaintiff hop on one foot without a wheelchair or other device was not justified, particularly because evidence showed the plaintiff was compliant with the extraction (despite a history of prior noncompliant behavior) and the lack of exigent circumstances. Because the jury did not award damages against her, the court declined to consider whether she was entitled to qualified immunity. Substantial evidence also supported liability under the ADA/RA for the entity. By preventing the plaintiff from using a wheelchair or mobility device, in violation of policy, the jailor was depriving the plaintiff of reasonable accommodation, even in light of the jail's legitimate security interests. But the 9th Circuit reversed the finding of Monell liability for failure to train. Establishing municipal liability based on a Monell theory of liability is difficult. The evidence showed that the entity provided training of its guards through multiple programs. Although the plaintiff contends the training is inadequate, that is insufficient to show deliberate indifference to a known danger. Regarding the damages award, the court upheld the decision that the prisoner suffered a physical injury that was more than de minimis, which allowed him to recover mental and emotional injuries under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. But the $504,000 was grossly excessive for the injury he suffered.