King

I. FACTS

The evidence introduced by plaintiff, including expert testimony, conflicted in many respects with the defense evidence. We recite the facts in the light most favorable to the judgment, in accordance with the substantial evidence standard of review. (612 South LLC v. Laconic Ltd. Partnership (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1276.) On February 20, 2007, plaintiff‘s knee was scraped in a scuffle with deputies at the Men‘s Central Jail. He was escorted to the clinic where his knee was bandaged. He was prescribed Motrin for pain and instructed to return for care of the wound. Two days later, plaintiff, alone and not in handcuffs, was returning to the clinic for the follow-up appointment when Kennedy saw him outside the 2500/2700 module of the Men‘s Central Jail. Kennedy, walking several feet behind plaintiff, asked him where he was headed. Plaintiff responded: ―Medical. Why?‖ Kennedy told plaintiff to proceed on his pass. As plaintiff continued walking, he glanced over his should and said, ―Why the fuck do you always have to side with him?‖ Kennedy did not understand the reference, but told plaintiff to stay quiet in the hall and proceed on his medical pass. Plaintiff turned,…