1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 COURTNEY MOTLEY, 4 Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:21-cv-02075-GMN-BNW 5 vs. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 6 MATTHEW MALTA, et al., OF LAW, AND DECISION 7 Defendants. 8 9 On January 26, 2026, the Court presided over a bench trial in this case. (Trans. 10 Proceedings, ECF No. 144). The trial involved the following four claims asserted by Plaintiff 11 Courtney Motley against Defendants Matthew Malta and Carlos Miranda: (1) excessive force 12 in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, 13 (3) assault, and (4) battery. At the bench trial, the Court heard evidence and legal argument. 14 Now, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 52(a), and after reviewing 15 the entire trial record, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law 16 regarding Plaintiff’s claims. 17 FINDINGS OF FACT 18 1. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff Courtney Motley was a pre-trial detainee being 19 housed in the Clark County Detention Center (“CCDC”). 20 2. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Matthew Malta was employed as a Las Vegas 21 Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”), CCDC Corrections Officer. 22 3. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Carlos Miranda was employed as an 23 LVMPD, CCDC Corrections Officer. 24 4. On September 17, 2021, Defendant Malta and a member of the CCDC nursing staff 25 were walking through Plaintiff’s module, offering the inmates their prescribed 1 medications. (Malta Cross Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/17/2021– 2 9/18/2021 at LVMPD000108, Admitted Trial Ex. 5005). 3 5. As Malta and the nurse approached Plaintiff’s cell, they asked him whether he 4 wanted to take his prescribed medications. (Malta Cross Examination); (Officer 5 Incident Report 9/17/2021–9/18/2021 at LVMPD000108, Admitted Trial Ex. 5005). 6 6. Plaintiff advised Malta and the nurse that he wanted to take his medications and 7 approached the food slot (an opening in the cell door with a separate cover used to 8 deliver food and medication to inmates) with a cup of fluid in his hands. (Malta 9 Cross Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/17/2021–9/18/2021 at 10 LVMPD000108, Admitted Trial Ex. 5005). 11 7. Plaintiff stuck his hand out of the food slot and caused the fluid in his cup to get on 12 Malta. (Malta Cross Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/17/2021–9/18/2021 at 13 LVMPD000108, Admitted Trial Ex. 5005). 14 8. Malta closed the food slot door while Plaintiff’s hand was still through the door. 15 (Motley Direct Examination). 16 9. Plaintiff suffered a cracked ring fingernail from Malta closing the foot slot door on 17 his hand. Plaintiff’s finger was bandaged. (Motley Direct Examination). 18 10. The action of Malta closing the food slot door on Plaintiff’s hand also caused 19 Plaintiff to fall backward on to the floor. (Motley Direct Examination).
20 11. After the incident, Plaintiff submitted a Medical Services Request complaining of 21 back pain in his tailbone on September 17, 2021. He stated that it was hard to walk, 22 requested pain medication, and an x-ray. He stated that he “feel[s] like I fractured 23 my tail bone.” (Motley Well Path Records at LVMPD000411, Admitted Trial Ex. 24 5007). 25 1 12. On September 17, 2021, a medical professional ordered Plaintiff to rest the affected 2 area, continue to be active with other muscles, prescribed ibuprofen, and instructed 3 Plaintiff to file another Medical Services Request if his symptoms persisted or 4 worsened. (Motley Well Path Records at LVMPD000411, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). 5 13. Plaintiff was charged a $5.00 medication fee for the visit. (Motley Well Path 6 Records at LVMPD000411, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). 7 14. Plaintiff did not file a grievance against Malta nor Miranda. 8 15. On September 20, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a follow-up Medical Services Request 9 wherein he asked to continue pain medication for his lower back pain and requested a 10 back brace. (Motley Well Path Records at LVMPD000410, Admitted Trial Ex. 11 5007). 12 16. On September 21, 2021, the medical professional confirmed that Plaintiff’s 13 ibuprofen prescription was current. (Motley Well Path Records at LVMPD000410, 14 Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). 15 17. The medical professional did not mark whether Plaintiff was charged a fee for the 16 visit or not. (Motley Well Path Records at LVMPD000410, Admitted Trial Ex. 17 5007). 18 18. On September 24, 2021, Malta and a member of the CCDC nursing staff were 19 walking through Plaintiff’s module, offering the inmates their prescribed
20 medications. (Malta Cross Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/24/21 at 21 LVMPD000115, Admitted Trial Ex. 5006). 22 19. Malta approached Plaintiff’s cell, and asked Plaintiff if he would like to take his 23 prescribed medications. Plaintiff indicated that he wanted to take his medications 24 and approached the food slot door. (Malta Cross Examination); (Officer Incident 25 Report 9/24/21 at LVMPD000115, Admitted Trial Ex. 5006). 1 20. Malta then opened the food slot door and Plaintiff put his hands through the door 2 and attempted to reach for Malta’s taser on his duty belt. (Malta Direct Examination); 3 (Malta Cross Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/24/21 at LVMPD000115, 4 Admitted Trial Ex. 5006). Malta’s duty belt contained a taser, module cell keys, 5 handcuffs, pepper spray, and a radio. (Malta Cross Examination). 6 21. Plaintiff stated “I’m gonna take your taser bitch!” (Officer Incident Report 9/24/21 7 at LVMPD000115, Admitted Trial Ex. 5006). 8 22. Malta attempted to shut the food slot door to gain control of Plaintiff’s hands. (Malta 9 Direct Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/24/21 at LVMPD000115, Admitted 10 Trial Ex. 5006). 11 23. Malta then attempted to gain control of Plaintiff’s hands by grabbing Plaintiff’s 12 hands and attempting to redirect Plaintiff’s hands into his cell. (Malta Cross 13 Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/24/21 at LVMPD000115, Admitted Trial 14 Ex. 5006). 15 24. Miranda responded to Plaintiff’s cell to assist Malta. (Malta Cross Examination); 16 (Miranda Direct Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/24/21 at LVMPD000115, 17 Admitted Trial Ex. 5006). 18 25. Upon arriving at Plaintiff’s cell, Miranda kicked the food slot door with his foot 19 while Plaintiff’s arms were through it. (Motley Direct Examination).
20 26. Plaintiff then felt a pop, a sharp pain, and experienced spinal pain. Plaintiff’s 21 shoulder became dislocated because of this action. (Motley Direct Examination). 22 27. Miranda then attempted to gain control of Plaintiff’s hands by grabbing Plaintiff’s 23 hands and attempting to redirect Plaintiff’s hands into his cell. (Officer Incident 24 Report 9/24/21 at LVMPD000115, Admitted Trial Ex. 5006). 25 1 28. After Plaintiff’s hands were contained and in his cell, Miranda punched Plaintiff in 2 the face, causing injury to Plaintiff’s nose and mouth. (Motley Direct Examination). 3 29. The punch also caused Plaintiff to fall backward. (Motley Direct Examination). 4 30. Malta called for backup and additional officers responded to Plaintiff’s cell. (Malta 5 Direct Examination); (Malta Cross Examination); (Officer Incident Report 9/24/21 at 6 LVMPD000115, Admitted Trial Ex. 5006). 7 31. A responding sergeant made Plaintiff put a face mask on and “cuff up” with 8 handcuffs to be escorted from his cell. (Motley Direct Examination). 9 32. On September 27, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a Medical Services Request wherein he 10 requested pain medication and a wheelchair. (Motley Well Path Records at 11 LVMPD000409, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). 12 33. On September 28, 2021, the medical professional prescribed Tylenol to Plaintiff, 13 ordered an x-ray, a wheelchair, and a doctor’s appointment for Plaintiff. (Motley 14 Well Path Records at LVMPD000409, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). 15 34. Plaintiff was not charged a fee for this visit. (Motley Well Path Records at 16 LVMPD000409, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). 17 35. CCDC did not preserve surveillance footage of either incident. (Motley Direct 18 Examination); (Miranda Direct). 19 36. Plaintiff continues to experience pain and suffering as a result of the two incidents.
20 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 21 Plaintiff asserts four claims against Malta and Miranda: (1) excessive force in violation 22 of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, (3) assault, 23 and (4) battery. The Court analyzes each of the claims in turn. 24 25 1 A. Excessive Force 2 The Fourteenth Amendment applies to excessive force claims brought by pretrial 3 detainees. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that “[i]t is clear . . . that the Due Process 4 Clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment.” 5 Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989). When a prison official is accused of using 6 excessive physical force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the question turns on 7 whether the defendant’s use of force was purposeful and knowing, and whether the force 8 purposely or knowingly used against the pretrial detainee was objectively unreasonable. 9 Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396–97 (2015). The standard considers whether the 10 officers’ actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting 11 them, regardless of the officer’s underlying intent or motive. Id. at 396. Courts must balance 12 the state’s interest in maintaining order and defer to practices needed to preserve order and 13 discipline in the judgment of the officials. Id. at 397. The following considerations may bear 14 on the reasonableness (or unreasonableness) of the force used: “the relationship between the 15 need for the use of force and the amount of force used”; “the extent of the plaintiff’s injury”; 16 “any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force”; “the severity of the 17 security problem at issue”; “the threat reasonably perceived by the officer”; and “whether the 18 plaintiff was actively resisting.” Id. 19 Relying on Kingsley, Ninth Circuit Civil Jury Instruction 9.33 breaks down a Fourteenth
20 Amendment excessive force claim into the following elements: (1) the defendant purposely or 21 knowingly used force against the plaintiff; (2) the force used against the plaintiff was 22 objectively unreasonable; and (3) the acts of the defendant caused harm to the plaintiff. Ninth 23 Cir. Model Civil Jury Instrs. 9.33 (2025 ed.). The Court therefore uses these elements to 24 organize its analysis. 25 1 1. September 17, 2021 2 The Court begins by discussing whether Malta used excessive force against Plaintiff 3 during the September 17, 2021, incident 4 a. Purposely or Knowingly Used Force 5 Malta denies using any force against Plaintiff on this date after Plaintiff caused the fluid 6 in his cup to get on Malta. However, Plaintiff testified that after he caused fluid to get on 7 Malta, Malta closed the food slot door on Plaintiff’s hand, which caused him to suffer a cracked 8 nail on his ring finger and to fall backwards, causing injury to his tailbone. The Court credits 9 Plaintiff’s testimony because Defense did not offer any evidence or testimony to rebut 10 Plaintiff’s testimony that his finger was injured, and Plaintiff’s tailbone injury is plainly 11 supported by his medical records. Indeed, on the same day of the incident, Plaintiff submitted a 12 Medical Services Request complaining of back pain in his tailbone. (Motley Well Path Records 13 at LVMPD000411, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). The finger injury Plaintiff testified to, and the 14 tailbone injury the record corroborates, support his testimony that Malta used force against him. 15 Thus, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Malta purposely and knowingly 16 used force on Plaintiff when he closed the food slot door on Plaintiff’s hand which caused him 17 to fall backwards. 18 b. Objectively Unreasonable Force 19 The Court addresses the Kingsley factors in turn.
20 i. Relationship Between the Need for the Use of Force and the Amount of Force Used 21 22 The Court begins by analyzing the relationship between the need for the use of force and 23 the amount of force used. The Court finds that there was no need for Malta to close the food 24 slot door on Plaintiff’s hand after Plaintiff caused a fluid to get on Malta. To begin, closing the 25 food slot door on Plaintiff’s hand amounts to some amount of force. This amount of force was 1 not needed because the act of Plaintiff causing a fluid to get on Malta had already been 2 completed. Moreover, if the fluid was water, then the situation could have been wholly 3 addressed through administrative action without the need for any force. Similarly, even if the 4 fluid in the cup was urine, the situation could have been wholly addressed through either 5 administrative action or criminal prosecution.1 Thus, this factor weighs in favor of the force 6 being unreasonable. 7 ii. Extent of Plaintiff’s Injuries 8 The Court next determines the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff testified that he 9 suffered from a cracked nail on his ring finger and a tailbone fracture which made it difficult 10 for him to walk after the incident. The Court credits Plaintiff’s testimony regarding his finger 11 injury for the reasons discussed above. Further, although the evidence before the Court does 12 not confirm that Plaintiff suffered a tailbone fracture, it does confirm that Plaintiff suffered a 13 tailbone injury and faced difficulty walking as a result of the accident. Indeed, Plaintiff 14 submitted a Medical Services Request complaining of back pain in his tailbone on September 15 17, 2021. (Motley Well Path Records at LVMPD000411, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). He stated 16 that it was hard to walk, requested pain medication, and an x-ray. (Id.). He stated that he 17 “feel[s] like I fractured my tail bone.” (Id.). The medical professional ordered Plaintiff to rest 18 the affected area, continue to be active with other muscles, prescribed ibuprofen, and instructed 19 Plaintiff to file another Medical Services Request if his symptoms persisted or worsened. (Id.).
20 Three days later, Plaintiff submitted a follow-up Medical Services Request wherein he asked to 21 continue pain medication for his lower back pain and requested a back brace. (Id. at 22 LVMPD000410). The medical professional confirmed that Plaintiff’s ibuprofen prescription 23 was still current. (Id.). Plaintiff also testified that he presently suffers from lower back pain 24
25 1 To further prove this point, Plaintiff was in fact charged with an unlawful act related to human excrement or bodily fluid in violation of NRS 212.189. (Decl. of Arrest at LVMPD000102, Trial Ex. 5005). 1 which the Court credits. Plaintiff’s continued suffering, 4.5 years later, further bolsters the 2 Court’s finding that Plaintiff’s injuries are extensive. 3 Based on Plaintiff’s testimony at trial and the record before the Court, the Court finds 4 that Plaintiff suffered from extensive injuries. This factor therefore weighs in favor of finding 5 that the force used was unreasonable. 6 iii. Defendant’s Effort to Temper or Limit 7 The Court next considers the effort made by Malta to temper or to limit the amount of 8 force. During Plaintiff’s direct examination, he recounted the September 17, 2021, incident in 9 detail, but there was no testimony regarding the efforts Malta made to temper or limit the 10 amount of force used. During Malta’s direct and cross examination, he testified that he did not 11 use any force on Plaintiff and that Plaintiff’s hands were completely inside the cell when he 12 closed the food slot door. Malta’s testimony was also devoid of any recount of the efforts he 13 made to temper or limit the amount of force. Malta’s denial of using force cuts against his 14 credibility as a witness and by denying that he used force he fails to provide mitigation 15 testimony to justify the amount of force that was used or to explain any efforts he made to 16 temper. Moreover, the fact that CCDC did not preserve surveillance footage of this incident, 17 even after they pursued criminal charges against Plaintiff under NRS 212.189, further cuts 18 against Malta’s credibility. But because it is ultimately Plaintiff’s burden to prove his claim by 19 a preponderance of the evidence, the Court finds that this factor is neutral in determining
20 whether the force was unreasonable. 21 iv. Severity of Security Problem 22 Next the Court considers the severity of the security problem at issue. If the fluid in 23 Plaintiff’s cup was urine, the fluid getting on Malta may have given rise to a health hazard, but 24 it was not a security problem. And water getting on Malta is likewise not a security problem. 25 Thus, the fluid that Plaintiff caused to get on Malta did not pose a security problem regardless 1 of whether the fluid was water or urine. Because no security problem existed, this factor 2 weighs in favor of finding that the force was unreasonable. 3 v. Threat Reasonably Perceived by Defendant 4 The Court next considers the threat reasonably perceived by Malta. Malta testified that 5 Plaintiff intentionally threw fluid on him. Malta testified that Plaintiff then yelled, “That’s piss 6 you bitch,” which is corroborated by the record. (See Officer Incident Report 9/17/2021– 7 9/18/2021 at LVMPD000108, Admitted Trial Ex. 5005). But even if the fluid was urine, based 8 on Malta’s testimony and the incident report, he quickly realized that the fluid in the cup was 9 urine. The Court finds that urine getting on Malta is a threat, because of the health concerns 10 posed by contact with bodily fluids. However, Malta testified that Plaintiff retreated into his 11 cell after Plaintiff caused the fluid to get on Malta and Plaintiff testified that Malta closed the 12 food slot door on Plaintiff’s hand immediately after. Thus, by either account, Malta could not 13 have reasonably believed the threat continued beyond the single instance of the fluid getting on 14 Malta. This factor therefore weighs in favor of finding the force used was unreasonable. 15 vi. Whether Plaintiff was Actively Resisting 16 Lastly, the Court addresses whether Plaintiff was actively resisting. Plaintiff testified on 17 direct examination that his hand was through the food slot door when Malta closed the door on 18 Plaintiff’s hand. There was no testimony elicited that Plaintiff was resisting. Plaintiff’s 19 testimony regarding the injury he sustained to his ring finger is consistent with his testimony
20 that his hand was through the door when Malta closed the door on it, meaning Plaintiff did not 21 have the opportunity to resist before the food slot door was closed on his hand. Malta, who 22 denies he used any force against Plaintiff, testified that Plaintiff immediately retreated into his 23 cell after causing fluid to get on Malta, which is further evidence supporting a finding that 24 Plaintiff was not resisting. Because Plaintiff was not resisting at the time the force was used, 25 the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of finding the force was unreasonable. 1 In sum, and after careful consideration of the factors, the Court finds that Plaintiff 2 proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Malta’s use of force was objectively 3 unreasonable. 4 c. Harm 5 As stated above in greater detail, Plaintiff testified that he suffered from an injured 6 fingernail and tailbone, which the Court credits because the record and testimony support such 7 a finding. Defense did not offer any rebuttal to explain an alternative theory for Plaintiff’s 8 claimed injuries. Plaintiff therefore proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he was 9 harmed, because the act of Malta closing the food slot door on Plaintiff’s hand caused Plaintiff 10 an injury to his fingernail and his tailbone when he fell backwards. 11 In sum, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Malta used excessive 12 force against Plaintiff in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on September 17, 2021. 13 2. September 24, 2021 14 The Court now turns to whether Malta and/or Miranda used excessive force against 15 Plaintiff in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment during the September 24, 2021, incident. 16 a. Purposely or Knowingly Used Force 17 Malta and Miranda both testified to using force against Plaintiff during the September 18 24, 2021, incident to get Plaintiff’s arms off and away from Malta’s duty belt containing a taser 19 and other items and back into his cell. Thus, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the
20 evidence that both Malta and Miranda purposely and knowingly used force on Plaintiff. 21 b. Objectively Unreasonable Force 22 The Court addresses each Kingsley factor in turn. 23 i. Relationship Between the Need for the Use of Force and the Amount of Force Used 24 The Court begins by analyzing the relationship between the need for the use of force and 25 the amount of force used by Malta and Miranda individually. During medication pass on 1 September 24, 2021, Malta testified that he approached Plaintiff’s cell to assist the nurse with 2 giving Plaintiff his medication. Malta testified that Plaintiff was calm when Malta and the 3 nurse approached Plaintiff’s cell. Malta testified that he opened the food slot door to 4 administer Plaintiff’s medications to him and Plaintiff stuck both of his hands through the food 5 slot door. Malta testified that Plaintiff next reached for Malta’s hand with one hand and 6 Malta’s taser attached to his duty belt with his other hand. The belt contained Malta’s taser, 7 handcuffs, module cell keys, pepper spray, and a radio. Malta testified that he tried to close the 8 food slot door to protect himself and the nurse. When that was unsuccessful, Malta then tried 9 to gain control of Plaintiff’s hands to get Plaintiff’s hands away from his belt, and back through 10 the cell door. Malta testified that Miranda responded to the cell and tried to help Malta redirect 11 Plaintiff’s hands back into the cell. Malta was able to call for more officers with the radio on 12 his shoulder. Malta’s testimony is consistent with the incident report that he filled out after the 13 incident. (Officer Incident Report 9/24/21 at LVMPD000115, Admitted Trial Ex. 5006). The 14 Court credits Malta’s testimony here and finds that Malta used minimal force in a situation 15 where the force used was needed. 16 Miranda testified that he was sitting at his desk and heard the incident between Malta 17 and Plaintiff. Miranda testified that he responded to Plaintiff’s cell and grabbed Plaintiff’s 18 hands to redirect them away from Malta’s belt and tried to push them back into the cell through 19 the food slot door. However, Plaintiff testified that when Miranda responded to his cell, he
20 kicked the foot slot door with his foot. Plaintiff felt a pop, a sharp pain, and experienced spinal 21 pain. Plaintiff later testified that his shoulder became dislocated as a result of this incident. 22 Plaintiff also testified that Miranda then bent down, stuck his arm through the food slot door 23 and punched Plaintiff in the face causing injury to his lip and nose. The punch also caused 24 Plaintiff to fall backward. 25 1 Although Miranda denies kicking the food slot door and punching Plaintiff, the Court 2 credits Plaintiff’s testimony regarding Miranda’s actions. Plaintiff testified that when other 3 officers responded to the incident, a sergeant asked Plaintiff to put a face mask on because 4 Miranda reported Plaintiff was spitting. Plaintiff testified that while the sergeant asked for 5 Plaintiff to put the face mask on, the sergeant noticed the blood coming from Plaintiff’s nose. 6 This is consistent with Plaintiff’s testimony that Miranda punched him in the face. 7 Moreover, Plaintiff testified that the sergeant made him “cuff up” after the incident but 8 Plaintiff had a hard time putting his hands behind his back to cuff up and had to force his hands 9 behind his back. This line of testimony is consistent with his testimony that he suffered from a 10 dislocated shoulder. Plaintiff further testified that it was hard to walk directly after the incident, 11 which is consistent with his testimony that he fell backward after Miranda punched him. 12 Plaintiff’s medical records further corroborate his testimony that he fell backwards and 13 struggled to walk because on September 27, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a Medical Services 14 Request wherein he requested pain medication and a wheelchair. (Motley Well Path Records at 15 LVMPD000409, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). The medical professional prescribed Tylenol to 16 Plaintiff, ordered an x-ray, a wheelchair, and a doctor’s appointment for Plaintiff. (Id.). 17 The Court credits Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the actions Miranda took for the 18 preceding reasons. Moreover, the fact that CCDC did not preserve surveillance footage of this 19 incident cuts against Miranda’s credibility. The Court therefore finds that the force Miranda
20 used in an attempt to stop Plaintiff from accessing the items on Malta’s belt, by kicking the 21 food slot door was comparable to the need for the use of force due to the security problem 22 posed by Plaintiff attempting to gain access to those items, but once Plaintiff was no longer 23 touching Malta’s belt or accessories, the use of force to punch Plaintiff was unnecessary. 24 In sum, the relationship between the need for the force used and the amount of force 25 used by Malta weighs against the force being unreasonable. However, the relationship between 1 the need for the force used and the amount of force used by Miranda weighs heavily in favor of 2 the force being unreasonable. 3 ii. Extent of Plaintiff’s Injuries 4 Next the Court determines the extent of Plaintiff’s injuries. Plaintiff testified that he 5 suffered from a dislocated shoulder, specifically a hill sack lesion. This line of testimony is 6 consistent with Plaintiff’s testimony that Miranda kicked the food slot door while Plaintiff’s 7 arm was through it. Plaintiff also testified that he suffered from a busted nose and lip because 8 of Miranda punching him in the face. This line of testimony is consistent with Plaintiff’s line 9 of testimony regarding the sergeant’s response, as discussed above. These are serious injuries 10 and Plaintiff testified that his arm still pops out of place 4.5 years later. Thus, the extent of 11 Plaintiff’s injuries, caused by Miranda, weighs in favor of Miranda’s use of force being 12 unreasonable. However, this factor weighs against Malta’s use of force being unreasonable, 13 because the injuries are not attributable to him. 14 iii. Defendants’ Effort to Temper or Limit 15 Malta testified that he tried to use his hands to get Plaintiff’s hands back into his cell 16 before more force was used. Miranda testified that he and Malta told Plaintiff to put his hands 17 back into the cell, but Plaintiff refused. It is unclear from the testimony whether Miranda asked 18 Plaintiff to put his hands back into the cell before or after he kicked Plaintiff’s food slot door. 19 But based on Plaintiff’s testimony regarding Miranda’s actions, which the Court credits, it is
20 more likely than not that Miranda’s effort to temper occurred after Miranda kicked the food slot 21 door and before Plaintiff’s hands were contained. The record is devoid of any further evidence 22 of tempering or limiting the amount of force used—specifically there is no evidence that 23 Miranda limited the amount of force used after Plaintiff’s hands were contained and before he 24 punched Plaintiff in the face. Thus, Malta’s efforts to temper or limit the amount of force used 25 1 weighs against a finding that the use of force was unreasonable, but Miranda’s weighs in favor 2 of finding the force used was unreasonable. 3 iv. Severity of Security Problem 4 Next the Court considers the severity of the security problem at issue. Malta testified 5 that Plaintiff yelled “I’m gonna take your taser bitch!” and grabbed at his belt that contained a 6 taser, cell keys, and pepper spray among other items. This is clearly a very severe security 7 problem because Defendants must maintain the security of their assigned module, and an 8 inmate with access to keys, a taser, and pepper spray decreases the module’s security. Thus, 9 this factor weighs against both Defendants’ use of force being unreasonable. 10 v. Threat Reasonably Perceived by Defendants 11 The threat reasonably perceived by Defendants was high. Defendants and/or others 12 could have been incapacitated if Plaintiff gained access to Malta’s taser or pepper spray. This 13 factor therefore weighs against finding the force used by both Defendants was unreasonable. 14 vi. Whether Plaintiff was Actively Resisting 15 Malta and Miranda testified that Plaintiff was resisting, which the Court partially credits. 16 Indeed, Plaintiff was resisting initially, but he was not resisting when Miranda punched him in 17 the face. This factor therefore weighs against finding the force used by Malta was 18 unreasonable. But this factor weighs heavily in favor of finding the force used by Miranda was 19 unreasonable.
20 In sum, Plaintiff fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the use of force 21 by Malta was objectively unreasonable. However, after careful consideration and a weighing 22 of the factors, particularly the factors that heavily weigh in favor of an unreasonableness 23 finding, the Court finds that Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Miranda’s 24 use of force was objectively unreasonable. 25 1 c. Harm 2 As stated above, Plaintiff testified that Miranda caused him to suffer from a dislocated 3 shoulder and busted nose and lip. As explained in more detail above, the Court credits 4 Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the harm he suffered. Defense did not offer any rebuttal to 5 explain an alternative theory for Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Plaintiff therefore proves by a 6 preponderance of the evidence that the act of Miranda kicking the food slot door while 7 Plaintiff’s arm was sticking out of it caused Plaintiff to suffer a dislocated shoulder. Plaintiff 8 also proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the act of Miranda punching Plaintiff in the 9 face caused Plaintiff to suffer a busted nose and lip. 10 In sum, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Miranda used excessive 11 force against Plaintiff in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on September 24, 2021. 12 However, Plaintiff fails to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that 13 Malta violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights on September 24, 2021. 14 B. Retaliation 15 “Within the prison context, a viable claim of First Amendment retaliation entails five 16 basic elements: (1) An assertion that a state actor took some adverse action against an inmate 17 (2) because of (3) that prisoner’s protected conduct, and that such action (4) chilled the 18 inmate’s exercise of his First Amendment rights, and (5) the action did not reasonably advance 19 a legitimate correctional goal.” Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567–68 (9th Cir. 2005);
20 accord Bird v. Dzurenda, 131 F.4th 787, 790 (9th Cir. 2025) (identifying same elements). 21 Here, Plaintiff fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he engaged in 22 conduct protected under the First Amendment. While the filing of grievances against prison 23 officials is a protected activity, Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567–68, Plaintiff fails to establish by a 24 preponderance of the evidence that he filed such a grievance. Plaintiff testified on direct 25 examination that a nurse provided him an emergency paper grievance that he filled out 1 following the September 17, 2021, incident. He then testified that he placed the grievance on 2 his cell door, but the grievance disappeared. Plaintiff testified that he does not know what 3 happened to the paper grievance. The record is devoid of any evidence or testimony that 4 Plaintiff handed the paper grievance to a proper individual or otherwise filed the grievance. 5 Plaintiff therefore fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the paper grievance 6 was in fact filed. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 7 he engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment. Plaintiff thus fails to prove by a 8 preponderance of the evidence that Malta and Miranda are liable for retaliation in violation of 9 the First Amendment.2 10 C. Assault & Battery 11 To succeed on an assault claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant: (1) 12 intended to cause harmful or offensive physical contact; and (2) the victim was put in 13 apprehension of such contact. Sandoval v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 854 F. Supp. 2d 860, 14 882 (D. Nev. 2012) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 21 (1965), aff’d in part, rev’d in 15 part on other grounds, 756 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014)). To succeed on a battery claim, a 16 plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant: (1) intended to cause harmful or offensive 17 contact; and (2) such contact occurred. Burns v. Mayer, 175 F. Supp. 2d 1259, 1269 (D. Nev. 18 2001) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 13, 18 (1965)). In Nevada, police officers are 19 privileged to use the amount of force reasonably necessary. See Yada v. Simpson, 913 P.2d
20 1261, 1262 (Nev. 1996), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by RTTC 21 Commc’n, LLC v. Saratoga Flier, Inc., 110 P.3d 24, 29 (Nev. 2005). Officers are “liable for 22 battery to the extent they use more force than is reasonably necessary.” Gordon v. Las Vegas 23 Metro. Police Dep’t, No. 2:13-cv-01095-GMN-GWF, 2015 WL 5344549, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 24 25 2 The Court need not address the remaining elements of the retaliation claim. But the Court notes, for the record, that the evidence supports a finding that Plaintiff’s water was turned off by Malta or Miranda on September 18, 2021, and was not turned back on until eight days later. 1 14, 2015); Ramirez v. City of Reno, 925 F. Supp. 681, 691 (D. Nev. 1996) (applying Nevada 2 law); see Yada, 913 P.2d at 1262. 3 “Like an excessive force claim, battery and assault claims against police officers also 4 require proof of unreasonable force.” J.D.H. v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, No. 2:13-cv- 5 01300-APG-NJK, 2014 WL 3809131, at *7 (D. Nev Aug. 1, 2014); see also Ramirez, 925 F. 6 Supp. at 691 (“The standard for common-law assault and battery by a police officer thus 7 mirrors the federal civil rights law standard. . . .”). Therefore, because Malta used excessive 8 force against Plaintiff on September 17, 2021, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the 9 evidence that Malta is likewise liable for assault and battery for the incident that occurred on 10 the same date. Moreover, because Miranda used excessive force against Plaintiff on September 11 24, 2021, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Miranda is liable for assault 12 and battery for the incident that occurred on September 24, 2021. Finally, because Plaintiff 13 fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Malta used excessive force against him 14 on September 24, 2021, he therefore fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 15 Malta is liable for assault and battery for the incident that occurred on the same date. 16 D. Overall Claims Conclusion 17 The Court now summarizes the claims each Defendant is and is not liable for. 18 1. Defendant Malta 19 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence
20 that Malta is liable for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment based on the 21 September 17, 2021, incident. Plaintiff also proves by a preponderance of the evidence that 22 Malta is liable for assault and battery for the September 17, 2021, incident. 23 Plaintiff fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, and thus Malta is not liable 24 for, the following claims: retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, excessive force in 25 1 violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for the September 24, 2021, incident, and assault and 2 battery based on the September 24, 2021, incident. 3 2. Defendant Miranda 4 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence 5 that Miranda is liable for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment based on 6 the September 24, 2021. incident. Plaintiff also proves by a preponderance of the evidence that 7 Miranda is liable for assault and battery for the September 24, 2021, incident. 8 Plaintiff fails to prove by a preponderance of the evidence, and thus Miranda is not 9 liable for, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 10 E. Damages 11 Now the Court must ascertain the damages that each Defendant is liable for. Plaintiff 12 moves for compensatory and punitive damages. 13 1. Excessive Force in Violation of Fourteenth Amendment 14 The Court begins with compensatory damages before turning to punitive damages for 15 Plaintiff’s excessive force claim. 16 a. Compensatory Damages 17 Plaintiff has the burden of proving damages by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 Damages means the amount of money that will reasonably and fairly compensate Plaintiff for 19 any injury that was caused by Malta as it relates to the September 17, 2021, incident, and by
20 Miranda as it relates to the September 24, 2021, incident. In determining the measure of 21 damages, the Court considers the following: (1) the reasonable value of necessary medical care, 22 treatment, and services received to the present time; (2) the nature and extent of the injuries; 23 and (3) the mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering experienced. 24 The Court begins with the reasonable value of necessary medical care, treatment, and 25 services Plaintiff received as a result of the incidents. After the September 17, 2021, incident, 1 Plaintiff submitted a Medical Services Request complaining of back pain in his tailbone. 2 Plaintiff was charged a $5.00 medication fee for the visit. (Motley Well Path Records at 3 LVMPD000411, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). Plaintiff therefore proves by a preponderance of 4 the evidence that he incurred $5 in medical expenses as a result of the September 17, 2021, 5 incident for which Malta is liable for. The record is devoid, however, of any evidence that 6 Plaintiff incurred medical expenses as a result of the September 24, 2021, incident. 7 The Court next addresses the nature and extent of the injuries. As described above, the 8 Court finds that Plaintiff’s injuries are extensive. He suffered from an injured fingernail and 9 injured tailbone as a result of the September 17, 2021, incident, and a dislocated shoulder and 10 busted nose/lip as a result of the September 24, 2021, incident. 11 The Court now turns to the mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering endured 12 by Plaintiff. With respect to the September 17, 2021, incident, Plaintiff testified that he 13 suffered a cracked ring fingernail. Moreover, Plaintiff submitted a Medical Services Request 14 complaining of back pain in his tailbone on September 17, 2021. (Motley Well Path Records at 15 LVMPD000411, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). He stated that it was hard to walk, requested pain 16 medication, and an x-ray. (Id.). He stated that he “feel[s] like I fractured my tail bone.” (Id.). 17 The medical professional ordered Plaintiff to rest the affected area, continue to be active with 18 other muscles, prescribed ibuprofen, and instructed Plaintiff to file another Medical Services 19 Request if his symptoms persisted or worsened. (Id.). Three days later, Plaintiff submitted a
20 follow-up Medical Services Request wherein he asked to continue pain medication for his 21 lower back pain and requested a back brace. (Id. at LVMPD000410). The medical professional 22 confirmed that Plaintiff’s ibuprofen prescription was still current. (Id.). Moreover, Plaintiff 23 testified that he still experiences back pain when he sits, uses the restroom, or stands for long 24 periods of time as a result of the September 17, 2021, incident. During the trial, Plaintiff 25 exhibited signs of continued mental and emotional suffering over the incident. Based on a 1 preponderance of the evidence, the Court finds that $10,000 will reasonably compensate 2 Plaintiff for the mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering he endured. 3 With respect to the September 24, 2021, incident, Plaintiff testified that when Miranda 4 responded to his cell, he kicked the foot slot door with his foot. Plaintiff then felt a pop, a sharp 5 pain, and experienced spinal pain. Plaintiff later testified that his shoulder became dislocated 6 as a result of this incident. Plaintiff also testified that Miranda punched Plaintiff in the face 7 causing injury to his lip and nose. The punch also caused Plaintiff to fall backward. Moreover, 8 Plaintiff testified that it was hard for him to “cuff up” after the incident because of his 9 dislocated shoulder. Plaintiff further testified that it was hard to walk directly after the incident. 10 Because of this incident, on September 27, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a Medical Services 11 Request wherein he requested pain medication and a wheelchair. (Motley Well Path Records at 12 LVMPD000409, Admitted Trial Ex. 5007). The medical professional prescribed Tylenol to 13 Plaintiff, ordered an x-ray, a wheelchair, and a doctor’s appointment for Plaintiff. (Id.). 14 Moreover, Plaintiff testified that, as of the date of the trial, his arm continues to pop out of 15 place, particularly at night, and it is hard for him to lift weights, and he can no longer do pull 16 ups. During the trial, Plaintiff exhibited signs of continued mental and emotional suffering 17 over the incident. Based on the preponderance of the evidence, the Court finds that $10,000 18 will reasonably compensate Plaintiff for the mental, physical, and emotional pain and suffering 19 he endured.
20 In sum, the Court finds that, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Malta is liable to 21 Plaintiff for $10,005 to reasonably and fairly compensate Plaintiff for damages he incurred as a 22 result of the excessive force used against him on September 17, 2021. The Court further finds 23 that based on a preponderance of the evidence, Miranda is liable to Plaintiff for $10,000 to 24 reasonably and fairly compensate Plaintiff for damages he incurred as a result of the excessive 25 force used against him on September 24, 2021. 1 b. Punitive Damages 2 Next the Court determines punitive damages. The purposes of punitive damages are to 3 punish a defendant and to deter similar acts in the future. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. 4 Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 419 (2003). The Court does not award punitive damages to 5 compensate Plaintiff. Indeed, the Court only awards punitive damages here because 6 “defendant[s’] culpability, after having paid compensatory damages, is so reprehensible as to 7 warrant the imposition of further sanctions to achieve punishment or deterrence.” Id. 8 To be awarded punitive damages, Plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the 9 evidence3 that Malta and/or Miranda’s conduct that harmed Plaintiff was malicious, oppressive, 10 or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights. Ninth Cir. Model Civil Jury Instrs. 5.5 (2025 11 ed.). Conduct is malicious if it is accompanied by ill will, or spite, or if it is for the purpose of 12 injuring Plaintiff. Id. Conduct is in reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights if, under the 13 circumstances, it reflects complete indifference to the plaintiff’s safety or rights, or if the 14 defendant acts in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate the plaintiff’s rights 15 under federal law. Id. An act or omission is oppressive if the defendant injures or damages or 16 otherwise violates the rights of the plaintiff with unnecessary harshness or severity, such as by 17 misusing or abusing authority or power or by taking advantage of some weakness or disability 18 or misfortune of the plaintiff. Id. 19 Here, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Malta’s conduct that
20 caused Plaintiff harm on September 17, 2021, was malicious. The Court finds that Malta acted 21 with ill will towards Plaintiff when he closed the food slot door on Plaintiff’s hand causing him 22 23 3 The preponderance of the evidence standard has been upheld for punitive damages in certain federal claims. See, e.g., In re Exxon Valdez, 270 F.3d 1215, 1232 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that preponderance standard applied 24 to punitive damages claim in maritime case (citing Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Haslip, 499 U.S. 1, 23 n.11 (1991)); Costa v. Desert Palace, Inc., 299 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2002), aff’d, 539 U.S. 90 (2003) (Title VII); Brummett v. 25 Martinez, No. 1:21-CV-00086-BAM (PC), 2024 WL 3818975, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2024) (First Amendment Retaliation). 1 to fall backward and injure his tailbone because the purpose for closing the food slot door was 2 because Plaintiff caused fluid to get on Malta. Malta’s actions were to punish Plaintiff, not to 3 preserve order and discipline. 4 Moreover, Plaintiff proves by a preponderance of the evidence that Miranda’s conduct 5 that caused Plaintiff harm on September 24, 2021, was malicious. Miranda punched Plaintiff 6 after the perceived threat had already ended. This act can only be viewed as one of ill will and 7 with the intention to injure Plaintiff. 8 The Court decides that punitive damages in the amount of $5,000 for each incident—the 9 September 17, 2021, incident for which Malta is liable, and the September 24, 2021, incident 10 for which Miranda is liable—is sufficient to fulfill the punitive damages purposes. 11 2. Assault & Battery 12 The Nevada Supreme Court has explained that “when a plaintiff asserts claims under 13 different legal theories [for the same conduct], ‘he or she is not entitled to a separate 14 compensatory damage award under each legal theory.’” Elyousef v. O’Reilly & Ferrario, LLC, 15 245 P.3d 547, 549 (Nev. 2010) (quoting Grosjean v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 212 P.3d 1068, 16 1084 (Nev. 2009) (barring a plaintiff’s state law tort claim when the plaintiff had already 17 recovered for the same injuries on a federal § 1983 claim)). Rather, “the plaintiff is entitled to 18 only one compensatory damage award on one or both theories of liability.” Id. Thus, because 19 the Court awards Plaintiff compensatory damages under his Fourteenth Amendment excessive
20 force claim, the Court cannot award Plaintiff compensatory damages for the assault and battery 21 claims because they arise out of the same conduct. The Court will also not award punitive 22 damages twice. 23 24 25 1 ORDER 2 Now, therefore, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff established 4 by a preponderance of the evidence that Malta is liable for excessive force in violation of the 5 Fourteenth Amendment based on the September 17, 2021, incident. Plaintiff also proved by a 6 preponderance of the evidence that Malta is liable for assault and battery for the September 17, 7 2021, incident. Furthermore, Plaintiff proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Miranda 8 is liable for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment based on the September 9 24, 2021, incident. Plaintiff also proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Miranda is 10 liable for assault and battery for the September 24, 2021, incident. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Defendant Malta is 12 liable to Plaintiff for the following damages: 13 Compensatory: $10,005 14 Punitive: $5,000 15 Total: $15,005 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Defendant Miranda 17 is liable to Plaintiff for the following damages: 18 Compensatory: $10,000 19 Punitive: $5,000
20 Total: $15,000 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff failed to 22 prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Malta and Miranda are liable for retaliation in 23 violation of the First Amendment. Plaintiff also failed to prove by a preponderance of the 24 evidence that Malta is liable for excessive force in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment for 25 the September 24, 2021, incident, and assault and battery based on the same date. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff's Motion 2 || for Damages, (ECF No. 137), is DENIED as moot. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff's Motion 4 || for Transcripts and/or Case Summary, (ECF No. 148), is DENIED without prejudice. Upon 5 |} receiving this Order, Plaintiff may re-file his motion if he so desires, but the Court notes that 6 || there are no transcripts in this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED this 29 day of February, 2026. 9 10
UNITED S ES DISTRICT COURT 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Page 25 of 25