Draper v. Rosario, No. 14-16340 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a prisoner civil rights action, alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment stemming from a physical altercation with defendant Officer David Rosario. Plaintiff also alleged that defendant Lieutenant E. Rogers deprived him of a fair hearing in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. The district court dismissed the due process claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). The Eighth Amendment claim was tried and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Rosario. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff's procedural due process claim; because the district court applied the correct (summary judgment) standard, remand is not necessary; the district court properly concluded that plaintiff's unsupported allegations were insufficient to create a triable issue of material fact; because plaintiff failed to rebut defendants’ evidence of non-exhaustion, the district court properly dismissed his procedural due process claim against Rogers; the court rejected plaintiff's evidentiary challenges; the court concluded that defense counsel improperly vouched for the credibility of correctional officer witnesses during closing argument, but on plain error review, the district court’s failure to correct the error sua sponte does not warrant reversal; and the court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding $3,018.35 in costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, vacated the award of costs, and remanded for further consideration.
Court Description: Civil Rights. In an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a California state prisoner, the panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s procedural due process claim, affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings, and vacated the district court’s award of costs in favor of defendants and remanded. Plaintiff alleged a violation of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment stemming from a physical altercation with a prison officer. Plaintiff also alleged that in the administrative disciplinary proceeding that followed the altercation, the presiding officer deprived plaintiff of a fair hearing in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s procedural due process claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The panel held that even though defendants filed an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion rather than a motion for summary judgment on the exhaustion issue, remand was not necessary because the district court applied the correct summary judgment standard. The panel further held that because plaintiff failed to rebut defendants’ evidence of non-exhaustion, the district court properly dismissed the claim. DRAPER V. ROSARIO 3 Affirming the district court’s evidentiary rulings, the panel held that the district court did not err by excluding testimony from an inmate witness. The panel further held that counsel in a civil trial may not rely on evidence outside the record to vouch for the credibility of witnesses. In this case, defense counsel improperly vouched for the credibility of correctional officer witnesses during closing argument. On plain error review, however, the district court’s failure to correct the error sua sponte did not warrant reversal. Finally, the panel held that because several factors weighed heavily against a large cost award in this case, and severe injustice would result from such an award, the district court abused its discretion in taxing costs of $3,018.35 against plaintiff. Accordingly, the panel vacated the cost award and remanded for the district court to reconsider whether a cost award was warranted, and, if so, an appropriate amount, in light of the panel’s opinion. Concurring in part and dissenting in part, Judge Bea agreed with the majority that the judgment in favor of the defendants should be affirmed. He dissented in part, stating that the district court did not abuse its discretion in taxing costs against the plaintiff because the district court justifiably followed the presumption of taxing costs against the losing party. 4 DRAPER V. ROSARIO
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.