[00:00:00] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:02] Speaker 01:
My name is Tyler Bowman, and I'm a certified law student representative from the University of St.

[00:00:06] Speaker 01:
Thomas School of Law, appearing on behalf of Appellant Dwan Williams.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
My supervising attorney, Professor Gregory Sisk, is with me in the courtroom today.

[00:00:15] Speaker 01:
I would like to reserve four minutes for rebuttal for my partner, Skylar Payton.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
Rule 56 calls this court to view the facts in light most favorable to the non-moving party.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
Taken this light, substantial evidence shows that Officer Villanueva's motive during the attack was not about maintaining or restoring order.

[00:00:38] Speaker 01:
It was about getting even.

[00:00:40] Speaker 02:
Is that a binary choice under our law?

[00:00:43] Speaker 02:
In other words, if we do not find that on this record there was a legitimate penological interest in safety, must we find that it was wanton or malicious?

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I think if there is

[00:01:06] Speaker 01:
I think it is sort of a binary choice of whether or not if there is no panological purpose, then you can infer that there is some sort of malicious and sadistic purpose.

[00:01:17] Speaker 01:
However, if there are some sort of mixed motives, which I think is what Your Honor is suggesting, is that if there are mixed motives, then I think that is a

[00:01:27] Speaker 01:
that makes a case that this needs to go back to a jury for them to decide.

[00:01:31] Speaker 05:
Let me ask you about that, because I think that's the thrust of what Judge Johnstone was asking.

[00:01:35] Speaker 05:
The case law seems to say that we're in a prison setting, so we're not just dealing with an excessive force claim.

[00:01:41] Speaker 05:
We're dealing with the Eighth Amendment claim.

[00:01:44] Speaker 05:
And the case law seems to say that there's an Eighth Amendment claim if the officer's motives were sadistic and malicious.

[00:01:54] Speaker 05:
I'm not sure what the case law says when the officer's motives are mixed as a matter of law.

[00:02:00] Speaker 05:
So let's assume that I've got a good penological reason for doing something, but I also just don't like this guy.

[00:02:07] Speaker 05:
And so I'm malicious and sadistic, but I'm doing it for a good, you know, for a good penological reason.

[00:02:14] Speaker 05:
Do you have an Eighth Amendment claim under those circumstances?

[00:02:18] Speaker 01:
Your honor, if there is simply, if any time the force is being used maliciously or sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm, then there's an 18-month violation.

[00:02:27] Speaker 05:
Well, see, but that's why I'm pushing on this a little bit.

[00:02:29] Speaker 05:
The case law says for the very purpose of causing harm.

[00:02:34] Speaker 01:
For the very purpose of causing harm.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
I see your point.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
I disagree.

[00:02:37] Speaker 01:
Because I think if there is a penological purpose and there is only a penological purpose, then the officers would be afforded

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
deference under the Eighth Amendment case law as it stands.

[00:02:49] Speaker 05:
However, if there is any sort of malicious and sadistic purpose... Okay, so let me give you an example, and I don't want to take away all of your co-counsel's time.

[00:02:59] Speaker 05:
My guess is that Judge Johnstown will be fair on that.

[00:03:03] Speaker 05:
But let's assume that there's a good... I've got a good reason to stop this guy from yelling to the other inmates.

[00:03:11] Speaker 05:
Just assume that's the case.

[00:03:13] Speaker 05:
And in doing so,

[00:03:15] Speaker 05:
I also don't like him, and so I hit him too hard for do something that way.

[00:03:21] Speaker 05:
Are you saying under that circumstance there is an Eighth Amendment claim?

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
There definitely could be, which I think that's why we have a jury.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
And a question like that could go to the jury for them to take a look at the facts, which in this case and on this record, there are several facts that point to a malicious and sadistic motive.

[00:03:41] Speaker 01:
First of all, Officer Villanueva asserts that throughout this allegation that the kitchen inmate workers were unrestrained and were approaching us.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
And on this record, there is no possible way for the kitchen and mate workers to approach the escort team because they were locked in a secured holding enclosure.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
Would it matter for purposes of the Whitley Factories or other analysis that the officers were concerned about

[00:04:13] Speaker 02:
riot or disturbance or violence within the enclosure.

[00:04:17] Speaker 02:
In other words, there was no threat to those officers, but there might be a threat to the inmates within the enclosure off camera to the left.

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
There are certain facts in this record.

[00:04:29] Speaker 01:
I think the most important one to think about is the timing of which the agitation in the kitchen or in the secured holding enclosure occurred.

[00:04:40] Speaker 01:
Now, as the kitchen inmate workers had been walking, or as the escort team had been walking past the fence, the skid-holding enclosure, there had been some agitation that occurred only after Officer Villanueva had used the fax.

[00:04:53] Speaker 05:
How long an incident are we talking about here?

[00:04:55] Speaker 05:
I've watched the various videos, but what I can't tell is how long from the time your client stabbed a corrections officer until the time that a corrections officer put a shirt in his mouth elapsed.

[00:05:09] Speaker 01:
Piecing together the video footage, it appears that it is around three minutes.

[00:05:14] Speaker 05:
However... So if that's true, should we look at this incident holistically as a three-minute incident?

[00:05:22] Speaker 05:
See, what you've said to us in this case is, don't worry about the stuff that happened in the dining hall.

[00:05:27] Speaker 05:
That's all over.

[00:05:29] Speaker 05:
By the time he gets outside, we're dealing with a new set of facts.

[00:05:33] Speaker 05:
And I'm trying to figure out how to compress the period of time

[00:05:37] Speaker 05:
we have to have before that becomes a harder argument to make.

[00:05:41] Speaker 05:
I mean, this had all occurred in 30s.

[00:05:43] Speaker 05:
If this had occurred in the dining hall at the time of the stabbing, I would think you wouldn't have a very good argument.

[00:05:51] Speaker 05:
And so now this occurs three minutes later in the course of a continuing incident, if you will.

[00:05:57] Speaker 05:
Does that make a difference?

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
Your honor, I see I'm approaching the end of my time.

[00:06:01] Speaker 02:
We'll give you as much time as you need to answer our questions.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
Sounds good.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
So it's not about what the time that matters.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
Certainly that could be a factor among many to consider in determining how that initial altercation could justify subsequent use of force, but it's about the condition in which the prisoner is in before

[00:06:21] Speaker 01:
During the initial altercation, Williams was unrestrained, but then he was subsequently subdued.

[00:06:27] Speaker 01:
He was pepper sprayed.

[00:06:29] Speaker 01:
He was handcuffed.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
And as he was being escorted, he was held by two officers.

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
And as sworn declaration state from the kitchen inmate worker witnesses, he was compliant.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
He was not yelling or screaming at the other officers.

[00:06:41] Speaker 01:
There was no provocation.

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
And so it's really about what the condition of the prisoner

[00:06:46] Speaker 01:
is in that would justify a subsequent use of force.

[00:06:50] Speaker 01:
And this is the line that the Hudson case took.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
We also cite to a Third Circuit case called Smith v. Messinger in which

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
both the prisoners in that case were restrained.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
And it is the attack upon a restrained inmate who is compliant that the Eighth Amendment tries to protect.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
Counsel, I don't mean to stand in the role of the jury, but I reviewed the video and I'm struggling to determine where the officers crossed the line into sadistic malicious behavior.

[00:07:20] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, so if I'm hearing you correctly, you're getting at it was a quick incident

[00:07:27] Speaker 01:
But Your Honor, as the defendant states in his declaration, there is nothing brief about fearing for one's life.

[00:07:35] Speaker 01:
And also, Williams did suffer significant injuries on this record.

[00:07:40] Speaker 01:
He suffered bruising to his neck.

[00:07:42] Speaker 01:
He suffered lacerations to his lips and mouth.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
And then he was choked.

[00:07:47] Speaker 01:
And as the Grimmage case, additional court case out of Florida said, choking is, there is simply no legitimate purpose to the act of choking.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
And it is Republican conduct.

[00:07:59] Speaker 05:
Does he allege that the officers physically choked him or only that they stuffed the shirt in his mouth?

[00:08:05] Speaker 05:
I read his declaration as saying he choked.

[00:08:10] Speaker 05:
He physically choked because somebody stuffed the shirt in his mouth.

[00:08:14] Speaker 05:
Does he allege that people put their hands on his throat to choke him?

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
Your honor, the choking comes from the tugging on his shirt collar.

[00:08:22] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:08:23] Speaker 01:
And then Officer Villanueva.

[00:08:24] Speaker 05:
But he doesn't allege that people independently tried to choke him around his throat.

[00:08:29] Speaker 01:
No, not in the sense you're describing, but it came from his shirt collar.

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
What do we make of the use of racial slurs against Mr. Williams?

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
How does that weigh into, if at all, into the wantonness inquiry?

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
I think it weighs in heavily.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
As the defendants pointed out in their answer in brief, and we agree with them, that words alone cannot amount to an Eighth Amendment violation, but this is words with conduct.

[00:08:59] Speaker 01:
The racist language shows that there is a personalized motive, a personal, he was trying to harm and humiliate

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
Williams, and it's this words with conduct that could shed light on Officer Villanueva's motive, which points to a malicious and sadistic intent.

[00:09:22] Speaker 01:
Do I have no other questions?

[00:09:24] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Bowman.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
Mr. Schock.

[00:09:36] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors, may it please the Court.

[00:09:37] Speaker 04:
I'm Dan Schack of the Arizona Attorney General's Office on behalf of the defendant's appellees.

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
Some of the questions that the Court posed earlier demonstrate why this case under the Eighth Amendment in a prison setting is the most important factor.

[00:09:59] Speaker 04:
It is not

[00:10:01] Speaker 04:
The plaintiff has taken an extremely narrow view of the danger posed here.

[00:10:09] Speaker 04:
He says, the kitchen workers were pent up.

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
We can't refute that.

[00:10:14] Speaker 04:
They were in that fenced enclosure.

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
you have to, the courts give deference to corrections officials in maintaining and securing order.

[00:10:29] Speaker 04:
You can't forget the fact that after Mr. Williams was taken away into the holding pen, somebody had to come back and

[00:10:38] Speaker 04:
take those kitchen workers back into the kitchen.

[00:10:42] Speaker 04:
The situation had not resolved to normal peace and calm.

[00:10:46] Speaker 02:
But I guess you say that there, which I think is not quite what the officers say, that the workers were all enclosed.

[00:10:57] Speaker 02:
And I think perhaps restrained would be the word.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
So if they are restrained, what is the safety interest in doing what Mr., what Officer Villanueva did?

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
The safety interest is in keeping them from being riled up by the situation.

[00:11:19] Speaker 02:
But Officer Villanueva, according to the record, which we have to take on summary judgment, was the one who riled them up, was he not?

[00:11:27] Speaker 04:
That is one view of it.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
Well, one view of it, that's a view that the jury gets to sort out, isn't it?

[00:11:32] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:11:33] Speaker 04:
The view that you have to take of it is that

[00:11:37] Speaker 04:
Mr. Williams, in this state, calmly talked to the kitchen workers, said everything's okay, right.

[00:11:45] Speaker 04:
But there was, the communication itself is the danger that Officer Villanueva perceived, which is the fact that there could be communication going on could lead to the riling up, which is augmented by Mr. Williams' own statement that says,

[00:12:05] Speaker 04:
that inmates have to be on the lookout when corrections officers are handling other inmates and that if they perceive any, if they perceive overreaction that they will attack.

[00:12:20] Speaker 05:
I take your point that Officer Villanueva didn't have to be a disturbance behind the fence for him to want to keep Mr.

[00:12:31] Speaker 05:
Williams quiet.

[00:12:32] Speaker 05:
And I think he probably has a valid pedagogical reason in wanting to keep him quiet.

[00:12:37] Speaker 04:
I agree.

[00:12:38] Speaker 05:
I get to the question I asked your friends, which is let's assume that this is a mixed motive case, that there's evidence that I want to keep him quiet so these guys behind the fence don't get unruly.

[00:12:51] Speaker 05:
But I'm going to do it in a way that punishes him for mouthing off.

[00:12:56] Speaker 05:
And so I'm going to stuff his shirt in his mouth, perhaps knowing that it has pepper spray on it, and call him a racial slur at the same time.

[00:13:07] Speaker 05:
So if there's evidence of mixed motive here, if you will, does that make out an Eighth Amendment claim, or must it only be a sole motive case?

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
I am not aware of any authority that says that.

[00:13:22] Speaker 04:
if the officer did what he did, that would have been okay under the Eighth Amendment if he was pure of heart, but wouldn't be okay under the Eighth Amendment if he had an animus against the inmate.

[00:13:36] Speaker 04:
I'm not aware of any such authority.

[00:13:39] Speaker 04:
And the Supreme Court in Hudson v. McMillian says that

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
The direct quote is, that is not to say that every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action, not every push or shove, even if it may seem, later seem necessary, excuse me, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the piece of the judge's chambers, amount to an Eighth Amendment.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
Well, Hudson also asks exactly the thing that you just disclaimed, whether it was a good faith effort.

[00:14:15] Speaker 02:
a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.

[00:14:18] Speaker 04:
The evidence establishes that it was a good faith effort.

[00:14:22] Speaker 04:
It might have been infected a little bit with the excitement that Mr., excuse me, Officer Villanueva was experiencing at the time, but the evidence, and Your Honors have viewed the video, there was no

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
Villanueva was not taking any action against Mr. Williams during the entire procession out of the dining room, through the kitchen, and then through the yard until they got to the pent-up kitchen work.

[00:14:57] Speaker 02:
What do we make of, I think, Officer Villanueva's statement then, and this picks up, I think, on one of Judge Hurwitz's questions, that he was making an example of Williams, that they would not tolerate assaults on officers.

[00:15:15] Speaker 04:
Well, I don't believe he said he's making an example of him, but he did say, yes, he wouldn't tolerate assaults on his officers.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
That's a highly

[00:15:25] Speaker 02:
Not an abnormal thing for- Well, I guess the concern is that if that were part of the, I guess it's a question for you, is that a legitimate motive to take these actions against a restrained and subdued prisoner to send a message like that?

[00:15:49] Speaker 02:
As important and valuable as the message might be, is that the protected way of doing so in prison?

[00:15:55] Speaker 04:
Again, I'm not aware of any authority that says that if he had a mixed motive, then that changes it from a non-Eighth Amendment violation into an Eighth Amendment violation.

[00:16:09] Speaker 04:
And given the situation here, given the fact that any communication in Villanueva's eyes, and as the district court recognized, could have the potential of riling up these other inmates,

[00:16:25] Speaker 04:
which would create a danger down the road.

[00:16:28] Speaker 04:
That's the problem with the plaintiff's position.

[00:16:31] Speaker 05:
Can I ask you a couple questions about the record?

[00:16:33] Speaker 05:
I mean, one is that the district judge said the prisoners were unrestrained.

[00:16:40] Speaker 05:
And I don't know what he meant by restrained, but it certainly seems to me the judge seemed to assume that the prisoners could have come to where the officer and Mr. Williams were, and we now know they were behind a fence.

[00:16:54] Speaker 05:
And as I recall, Officer Villanueva first says, I don't remember doing any of that, and then later says, well, now that I've viewed the video, I probably did something.

[00:17:05] Speaker 05:
How does, if we're thinking about his motives and the danger posed at the time, don't those two parts of the record create a fact question?

[00:17:16] Speaker 04:
They do not create enough fact issue for for this court to reverse the to the extent that the judge thought that prison the kitchen workers were unrestrained.

[00:17:28] Speaker 04:
We know that's not true.

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
So you take that back and say at that time.

[00:17:34] Speaker 04:
The kitchen workers were inside the fenced-in area and so did not present an immediate threat.

[00:17:42] Speaker 05:
And the judge seems to have thought they did propose that date.

[00:17:45] Speaker 04:
Yeah, he missed that.

[00:17:47] Speaker 04:
And so, yes, you would have to correct that, but that doesn't change the result.

[00:17:51] Speaker 05:
Okay, now getting to the officer's motives.

[00:17:54] Speaker 05:
We have an officer who first said, I didn't do it.

[00:17:57] Speaker 05:
and then said, oh, now that I see something I did, and here's my motive.

[00:18:01] Speaker 05:
Does that create a sort of fact question as his motives?

[00:18:05] Speaker 04:
I don't believe so, Your Honor.

[00:18:06] Speaker 04:
You've viewed the video.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
You see that it's a very brief interaction.

[00:18:15] Speaker 04:
And it happens at the one particular time when

[00:18:20] Speaker 04:
the when Mr. Williams is interacting with the kitchen workers so that the fact that that he that officer via Nueva didn't remember that until the the reviewing the video I think is unremarkable he was he was reminded I mean it was a it's it's an out of the ordinary situation he's dealing with a very dangerous situation and he had to

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
had to respond to it.

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
So the fact that he didn't initially remember it, I think, is unremarkable.

[00:18:54] Speaker 04:
There are two points that I think need to be made.

[00:18:59] Speaker 04:
First of all, they have not argued against the summary judgment in favor of Officer Tribal A. They don't mention that at all in their briefs, so affirmance is necessary there.

[00:19:12] Speaker 04:
And the only thing they say about

[00:19:14] Speaker 04:
Officer Lopez is that he was holding Mr. Williams during the encounter.

[00:19:23] Speaker 04:
First of all, if you find in favor of Officer Villanueva, you obviously have to find in favor of Officer Lopez.

[00:19:30] Speaker 04:
But the other thing is even if you think Villanueva overreacted, it was a five second encounter

[00:19:38] Speaker 04:
And I believe it's unreasonable to think that Officer Lopez should have done something to prevent it.

[00:19:47] Speaker 04:
I'm out of time.

[00:19:48] Speaker 04:
If you have any other questions.

[00:19:51] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Mr. Schock.

[00:19:52] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:19:59] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:20:00] Speaker 02:
Payton.

[00:20:05] Speaker 00:
May it please the court.

[00:20:06] Speaker 00:
My name is Skylar Payton.

[00:20:07] Speaker 00:
I am also a student-certified representative on behalf of Williams.

[00:20:11] Speaker 00:
Here we have a situation where not only the summary judgment standard is at question, but our friends on the other side wish to change the Eighth Amendment.

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
In summary judgment, it is not enough to say some facts could go this way, and some facts could go this way.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
All reasonable inferences must go in favor of defendant Williams.

[00:20:29] Speaker 05:
Well, all reasonable inferences must go that way.

[00:20:32] Speaker 05:
but you have a higher burden than you have in a normal excessive force case.

[00:20:37] Speaker 05:
Do you agree?

[00:20:37] Speaker 05:
We do.

[00:20:38] Speaker 05:
But the — So let's — I want to start with the last point Mr. Shaq talked about.

[00:20:45] Speaker 05:
I think he's correct in thinking that there really is no reason not to sustain the summary judgment in favor of the other two officers.

[00:20:54] Speaker 05:
Can you respond to that?

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
As far as Officer Trevillette, we have no disagreement.

[00:20:58] Speaker 05:
And as far as Officer Lopez, your claim is that during this —

[00:21:02] Speaker 05:
incident that takes seconds, he continues to hold Mr. Williams.

[00:21:09] Speaker 05:
How does that show a sadistic and malicious motive on his part?

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
I don't think the facts at this case give us enough to be able to dismiss him on that.

[00:21:17] Speaker 05:
So as to those two, you agree to summary judgment?

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
No.

[00:21:19] Speaker 00:
I don't think the facts on Lopez would give us enough to dismiss on that.

[00:21:22] Speaker 00:
I think we would need to know more and get into a jury.

[00:21:25] Speaker 05:
Well, but you're at summary judgment is the problem.

[00:21:27] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:21:27] Speaker 05:
See, need to know more occurs before summary judgment.

[00:21:30] Speaker 05:
What fact do you have?

[00:21:32] Speaker 05:
that would give us a reason not to sustain the summary judgment against Lopez.

[00:21:36] Speaker 00:
I think we can all agree that Officer Villanueva is whose actions were the most focused on.

[00:21:40] Speaker 00:
But Officer Lopez did not help.

[00:21:42] Speaker 00:
He didn't step in.

[00:21:43] Speaker 05:
Well, not helping.

[00:21:44] Speaker 05:
Not helping during a five-second incident.

[00:21:49] Speaker 05:
I don't think can establish an Eighth Amendment violation against that officer.

[00:21:53] Speaker 05:
You may have a claim against me.

[00:21:54] Speaker 05:
I want to get to Mr. Villanueva in a second, but that's all you really have against Mr. Lopez, right?

[00:21:59] Speaker 00:
He didn't help.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
Yes, I'll defer to the court on that one.

[00:22:02] Speaker 00:
He didn't help.

[00:22:05] Speaker 05:
I want to get back to a question I tried to ask your friend at the beginning, your co-counsel at the beginning.

[00:22:11] Speaker 05:
We have an incident that lasts about three minutes, maybe four, maybe it's five.

[00:22:18] Speaker 05:
The beginning of the incident is your client stabs a correctional officer.

[00:22:23] Speaker 05:
Pretty bad thing.

[00:22:25] Speaker 05:
He resists being restrained.

[00:22:28] Speaker 05:
There's a big tussle.

[00:22:30] Speaker 05:
He gets taken away.

[00:22:31] Speaker 05:
At some point, according to him, his shirt gets stuffed into his mouth.

[00:22:36] Speaker 05:
So he stabbed a corrections officer.

[00:22:37] Speaker 05:
And at the end of it, he survives with a bruise on his neck and cuts on his lip and tongue.

[00:22:45] Speaker 05:
If I view that incident holistically, I guess my first reaction is, boy, he's lucky they didn't beat him with an inch of his life.

[00:22:53] Speaker 05:
Why is this an Eighth Amendment violation?

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
Two responses.

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
One, it's simply not under the Eighth Amendment to grant an all-day pass based on bad behavior.

[00:23:01] Speaker 05:
So you really want to compartmentalize this.

[00:23:04] Speaker 05:
I mean, you say everything was fine until they stuffed the shirt in his mouth.

[00:23:09] Speaker 05:
And Mr. Shack says, look, this is a continuing incident.

[00:23:14] Speaker 05:
reacting to the fact that one of their fellow officers has been stabbed, and your guy's mouthing off, and they want to keep him quiet.

[00:23:20] Speaker 05:
So why don't I view that as a one incident?

[00:23:23] Speaker 00:
Two things there.

[00:23:24] Speaker 00:
One, he wasn't mouthing off.

[00:23:26] Speaker 00:
He says in ER 72.

[00:23:27] Speaker 00:
Well, he was talking.

[00:23:28] Speaker 00:
Yeah, but he said he was talking in a de-escalatory manner.

[00:23:30] Speaker 05:
Well, whether or not, I mean, Mr. Shaq's point is,

[00:23:33] Speaker 05:
We want to stop this communication at this point.

[00:23:36] Speaker 05:
The officer can validly want to say, let's get this guy out of here with no more communication.

[00:23:41] Speaker 05:
Whether he's reciting the Bible or the Sixth Amendment, stop talking.

[00:23:47] Speaker 05:
We're taking you away.

[00:23:48] Speaker 05:
I think that's a perfectly valid thing for them to do, whether or not they

[00:23:53] Speaker 05:
use too much force doing it is a separate issue.

[00:23:56] Speaker 05:
But do you do agree that there is a valid reason to stop him from talking to the other?

[00:24:00] Speaker 00:
We do not, especially in this place.

[00:24:02] Speaker 05:
So you think he has a constitutional right after stabbing an officer and being taken to another facility to communicate with the other inmates?

[00:24:09] Speaker 05:
We do.

[00:24:10] Speaker 05:
To offer his point of view about the events?

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
We do and well he wasn't offering well I think that's a fair actually I think that's a fair description however here at summary judgment specifically what you're talking about is this is a super valid argument to make to a jury and not here we have evidence in the record that shows that this was a bad intent that this was retaliation that it was not about restoring order we can see that in the evidence in the record that shows

[00:24:33] Speaker 00:
the effective confession.

[00:24:35] Speaker 00:
We have the emissions.

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
We have the fact that there was no warning ever given.

[00:24:39] Speaker 00:
We have the use of racist language.

[00:24:41] Speaker 00:
We have facts on the record that shows that this was not in any sense of the imagination when taking it in the light most favorite of Williams as it must in this point in time.

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
Be a bad intent and bad intent is the key of an eighth amendment violation under Whitley and Hudson The key is what was the intent of the officers if there's mixed motive and as the last 15 minutes have showed us there is We need to go back to a jury so the jury can decide whether or not they believe our clients claims if the our friends on the other side wish to make the same argument in front of you today to the jury and

[00:25:14] Speaker 00:
We welcome it.

[00:25:15] Speaker 00:
It's a good argument for them.

[00:25:16] Speaker 00:
It's not a good argument for right here, right now.

[00:25:18] Speaker 00:
I also see my time has expired.

[00:25:20] Speaker 00:
I'm happy to keep answering questions if there are any.

[00:25:23] Speaker 02:
All right.

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:25:24] Speaker 02:
Payton.

[00:25:26] Speaker 02:
And again, with our thanks to the students and Professor Sisk for your supervision and the parties on both sides, the case is submitted.