Furnace v. Sullivan, et al, No. 10-15961 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff alleged that defendants, correctional officers at the prison where he was incarcerated at the time of the alleged occurrence, violated his Eighth Amendment rights by spraying him with an excessive quantity of pepper spray. Plaintiff also alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were disregarded when the officers denied him a vegetarian breakfast. The court held that the district court failed to draw all inferences in plaintiff's favor when resolving the issue of qualified immunity in a summary judgment and therefore, the court reversed and remanded on plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Equal Protection challenge where plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the officers intentionally refused to provide him with a religious breakfast tray while providing the same to other inmates who were similarly situated.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court’s summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought by a prison inmate who alleged that prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by spraying him with an excessive quantity of pepper spray, and violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights when they denied him a vegetarian breakfast. The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim, determining that the district court failed to draw all inferences in plaintiff’s favor when resolving the issue of qualified immunity. The panel concluded that given the facts, as alleged by plaintiff, a significant amount of force was employed without significant provocation from plaintiff or warning from the officers. The panel remanded on this issue. The panel affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of prison officials with respect to plaintiff’s Equal Protection challenge. The panel held that the district court properly concluded that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to whether the officers intentionally refused to provide him with a religious breakfast tray while providing the same to other inmates who were similarly situated.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.