Thursday, August 6, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Paralyzed Inmate’s Action Alleging Abuse Is Partially Revived
Opinion Says Judge Erred in Granting Summary Judgment, Rather Than Summary Adjudication, After Prison Guard Disproved Causal Link of Alleged Dropping of Plaintiff to New Injuries; Other Causes of Action Survive
By Kimber Cooley, associate editor
Div. Seven of this district’s Court of Appeal has reversed a summary judgment in favor of a prison guard who is accused of intentionally dropping a partially-paralyzed inmate, purportedly causing increased incapacitation, saying that the trial judge erred in rejecting the plaintiff’s battery claim based on the fact that the defendant debunked the causal link between the fall and the new injuries.
Highlighting that the plaintiff also asserted emotional distress allegations, Tuesday’s unpublished opinion declares that the defendant’s submission of an uncontested expert declaration, that asserts the inmate’s increased incapacitation was not caused by trauma, was sufficient to rebut the allegations that the guard caused the inmate’s injuries but not his assertions of pain and suffering caused by the purported battery.
Presiding Justice Gonzalo C. Martinez authored the decision, joined in by Justices Gail Ruderman Feuer and Natalie P. Stone, which also resurrects the plaintiff’s civil rights claims, filed under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, found at Civil Code §52.1, and a violation of the Ralph Civil Rights Act, codified at §51.7 of that code, rejecting the defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff had failed to show that there was a triable issue as to whether he acted “violently.”
Complaint Filed
Appealing the judgment of dismissal was Eddie Rankin, who filed a complaint against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and its employee, Amir Kardouni, in October 2019, alleging that he was “partially paralyzed from the waist down” such that he was unable to stand on his own without support at the time he was incarcerated for voluntary manslaughter and required aid to “move to obtain medical assistance.”
In the operative pleading, he claimed that Kardouni responded to his cell on Sept. 29, 2018 after he requested medical assistance. The plaintiff said that the guard told him that “you need to crawl out of the cell if you want any medical attention” before he threw a board used to transport disabled patients to the ground, lifted the inmate up, and dropped him to the floor near the plank.
The plaintiff asserted that he suffered a fractured vertebra, causing him to lose function in his bladder, bowel, and legs. Hospital records confirmed that Rankin was hospitalized from Sept. 29 through Oct. 9 and that he underwent spinal surgery.
He sought damages to compensate for his injuries as well as for emotional distress and pain and suffering.
Summary Judgment
Both defendants moved for summary judgment. CDCR asserted that it was shielded from liability against the plaintiff’s claims under Government Code §844.6; Kardouni argued that the plaintiff could not establish causation and had made inconsistent statements about the day in question.
Kardouni attached to his motion an expert declaration from a neurosurgeon, Dr. Paul Kaloostian, who asserted that “[t]here is no evidence of a fracture or any injury to the spine/spinal cord caused from an assault or a fall on September 29, 2018” and that his symptoms were “consistent with an abscess compressing the spinal cord.”
Then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Gail Killefer (now alternate dispute resolution director for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California) granted both motions in February 2023. As to the claims against Kardouni, she said:
“[T]he court finds no triable issues exist with regard to whether Plaintiff was harmed by any alleged conduct of Kardouni….Relying on the pleadings alone, only substantiated by Plaintiffs declaration, fails to raise a triable issue of material fact as to what injuries or harms Plaintiff sustained. The court finds Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in opposing summary adjudication as to this issue.”
A judgment of dismissal was entered on Feb. 23, 2023.
Other Allegations
Saying that “[w]e agree Kardouni was not entitled to summary judgment because he did not challenge the emotional distress or pain and suffering allegations in Rankin’s battery claim,” Martinez said:
“Here, Rankin’s battery cause of action alleged that Rankin ‘suffered damages including but not limited to mental pain and shock to his nervous system, anxiety, anguish, humiliation and emotional distress.’ And Rankin produced evidence, through his declaration and deposition testimony, that Kardouni ‘dropped’ or ‘slammed’ him on the ground in response to Rankin’s request for medical help. This evidence would permit a reasonable trier of fact to find that Kardouni intentionally engaged in harmful or offensive contact with Rankin.”
Addressing the civil rights claims, the jurist noted that §51.7 provides that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of” certain protected characteristics, including a “physical disability” or “medical condition.”
Civil Rights Claims
As to the plaintiff’s claim under the section, the jurist opined:
“Rankin’s declaration and deposition testimony stated that Kardouni picked him up off the floor and ‘dropped’ or ‘slammed’ him to the ground from waist height. That is sufficient to permit a jury to find that Kardouni committed violence against Rankin….Rankin’s declaration attesting that he was wearing a vest identifying him as disabled and that Kardouni called Rankin a [name] and told him to ‘crawl out of the cell’ for medical help could also permit a jury to find that Kardouni’s violence was motivated by Rankin’s physical disability and/or medical condition as a partial paraplegic.”
Turning to §52.1, which creates a civil cause of action against anyone who “interferes by threat, intimidation, or coercion, or attempts to interfere by threat, intimidation, or coercion, with the exercise or enjoyment by any individual or individuals of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of the rights secured by the Constitution or laws of this state,” Martinez remarked:
“As to the Bane Act, Rankin’s evidence could permit a jury to find that Kardouni interfered with or violated Rankin’s legal rights using threats, intimidation, or coercion. The evidence that Kardouni used force against Rankin—who was partially paralyzed and experiencing a medical emergency—could permit the jury to find Kardouni violated Rankin’s federal constitutional rights to medical care while incarcerated…and to freedom from unnecessary and wanton excessive force.”
Inconsistent Statements
Rejecting the assertion by lawyers with the Office of Attorney General that Kardouni was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff made inconsistent statements regarding the incident, which was not witnessed by anyone but the parties, the jurist said:
“Rankin’s declaration that Kardouni insulted him, picked him up, and dropped him was not clearly and unequivocally contradicted by any earlier statements such that it could not establish a triable issue of fact…. The Attorney General’s arguments regarding any inconsistencies in Rankin’s statements are more properly presented to a factfinder weighing the evidence.”
Finding no error as to Killefer’s finding that CDCR was entitled to summary judgment, she declared:
“The judgment in favor of CDCR is affirmed. The judgment in favor of Kardouni is reversed, and on remand the trial court is directed to vacate its order granting Kardouni’s motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order denying the motion.”
The case is Rankin v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, B329895.
Santa Monica-based attorney Lincoln W. Ellis represented Rankin. Martha P. Ehlenbach, Jaime Michelle Ganson, and Gurpreet Sandhu of the California Office of the Attorney General acted for the defendants.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company