Summary judgment should not have been entered against a prisoner on his excessive force claims since there were genuine factual disputes as to whether officers used force against him, including pepper spray, after he had begun to comply with their orders to him. Additionally, he allegedly was not warned before the use of the pepper spray, was not permitted to clean up after its use, and was then handcuffed to a bench and denied bathroom breaks, food, and water during that restraint. Walker v. Bowersox, No. 06-3118, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 11507 (8th Cir.).
     Prisoner failed to show that officers violated his rights in using pepper spray in the process of extracting another inmate from a cell near his. The officers were not shown to have acted with malicious and sadistic intent, but instead used the pepper spray to restore discipline when the other inmate refused to comply with their orders. The officers also followed written policies designed to minimize other inmates' exposure to the fumes of the pepper spray. Allen v. Bosley, No. 06-16541, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 25933 (9th Cir.).
     Prison officials were not entitled to summary judgment on prisoner's claim that the use of pepper spray against him constituted excessive force. A reasonable jury could conclude, from the evidence presented, that the prisoner had not advanced on the prison officials in a threatening manner, and that the use of the pepper spray had not been necessary to keep order. Barber v. Pinion, No. 1:04CV00118, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 72982 (M.D.N.C.).
     Use of one burst of pepper spray against inmate who refused orders to move from solitary confinement to general housing was not objectively unreasonable under clearly-established law, so that defendant prison lieutenant who did so was entitled to qualified immunity. The plaintiff inmate had refused to move because he was allegedly fearful of his safety in the general population. Thomas v. Comstock, No. 04-41696, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 6159 (5th Cir.).
     Two correctional officers were not entitled to summary judgment when there were factual issues about whether they used excessive force and pepper spray against female inmate at a time when she was allegedly not actively resisting them. Johnson v. Blaukat, No. 05-3866, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16091 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Aug]
     The use of a chemical agent to extract a prisoner from his cell did not violate his rights when it was used only after he repeatedly disobeyed orders to come out by himself. Eccleston v. Oregon, No. 04-36122, 168 Fed. Appx. 760 (9th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
     Sheriff and officers were not entitled to summary judgment in prisoner's lawsuit challenging their use of pepper spray against him at county jail. Factual issues existed as to how long he was sprayed, and whether he was "adequately irrigated" afterwards or allowed to suffer unnecessarily. Court also holds that the plaintiff was not required to exhaust available administrative remedies prior to pursuing his excessive force lawsuit, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e, since he was now a former prisoner. The requirement to exhaust such remedies only applies to current prisoners. Norton v. City of Marrietta, Ok, No. 04-7133, 432 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Correctional officer's alleged action of making an inmate wait from five to ten minutes before he could wash pepper spray from his face and eyes was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment when the prisoner had failed to comply with an order to enter his cell before being subjected to the spray. Kervin v. Barnes, No. 05-1443, 144 Fed. Appx. 551 (7th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Detainee suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, acute psychosis, impulse-control disorder, and "polysubstance abuse" could not assert disability discrimination claims since his impairments, because they could be corrected "or mitigated" by medication, did not constitute disabilities. Jail personnel did not use excessive force in using pepper spray to subdue him when he actively resisted his transfer to a hospital for treatment, and did not violate his right to receive adequate medical attention. Atwell v. Hart County, Kentucky, No. 03-6421, 122 Fed. Appx. 215 (6th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
     Prisoner's claim that he was sprayed with a chemical agent that damaged his lungs was insufficient to show an imminent danger of serious physical injury sufficient to allow him to proceed as a pauper with his federal civil rights lawsuit despite his prior failure, as a frequent filer of civil rights lawsuit, to make progress towards the repayment of unpaid filing fees from previously filed lawsuits. The complaint was dismissed on the basis of the three strikes rule, as required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(g), barring a prisoner from proceeding as a pauper after having three lawsuits dismissed as frivolous, except in cases of a risk of imminent physical harm. Because four months had elapsed between the alleged injury and the filing of the lawsuit, the prisoner could not show a risk of imminent danger. Cosby v. Gray, 124 Fed. Appx. 595 (10th Cir. 2005). [N/R]
     Federal appeals court upholds jury's award of $29 million in compensatory and $27.5 million in punitive damages against two deputy sheriffs for causing pre-trial detainee's death through use of excessive force. Failure to show that the death was caused by any official policy or custom, or by deliberate indifference to a widespread pattern of violation of jail policies, required summary judgment on claims against county sheriff. Mere number of uses of pepper spray did not show that it was being misused. Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, No. 03-3734, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 743 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Mar]
     Officer did not violate prisoner's right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment in spraying him with a chemical agent when the facts showed the officer acted in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline and not malicious or sadistically to cause him harm. Davis v. Cannon, #02-41596, 91 Fed. Appx. 327 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Prison employees did not use excessive force by spraying prisoner with pepper spray after he refused to exit a shower. The evidence showed that they applied the force used in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, and not maliciously to cause injury or pain. A videotape of the incident showed that the prisoner refused to obey several direct orders to leave the shower before the use of the pepper spray. Additionally, the use of the spray only caused discomfort, rather than any physical injury. Jennings v. Mitchell, No. 03-1922, 93 Fed. Appx. 723 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
     Jury verdict in favor of correctional officers' use of tear gas against prisoners locked in their cells during prison riot upheld. Plaintiff prisoners were not entitled, in the absence of a showing of "bad faith," to instructions to the jury that would have allowed it to infer that "missing evidence" such as video footage of the gassing incident would have been unfavorable to the defendant officers. Beaudry v. Corrections Corporation of America, No. 02-6073, 331 Fed. 3d 1164 (10th Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Sep]
     Correctional officer's use of mace in the course of quelling disturbance among death row inmates was not malicious or sadistic. Genuine issues remained as to whether commander of special response team failed to adequately control and instruct subordinates in suppressing confrontational prisoners or allowed the excessive use of "lethal levels" of gas and other chemical agents before ordering entry into death row unit. Death row prisoners could not pursue claims against unidentified officers concerning the use of excessive force. Combs v. Wilkinson, #00-4270, 315 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Apr]
      Prison officials were not liable for prisoner's injuries from being struck in the head by a tear gas canister fired during an inmate disturbance, when there was no showing that the canister was fired maliciously or sadistically. Torres-Viera v. Laboy-Alvarado, #01-2712, 311 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Mar.]
    Prison officials use of pepper spray to quell a fight in a cell between two prisoners in which one threatened to kill the other did not constitute an excessive use of force, even if a second application of pepper spray was administered after the prisoners began to cough, but before they were restrained. Appeals court rules, however, that officials were not entitled to qualified immunity from a deliberate indifference to medical needs claim by other prisoners in the cell block that the vapors drifted into their cells and they were not given showers or medical attention for four hours. Clement v. Gomez, # 01-16088, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 15659 (9th Cir.). [2002 JB Sep]
     Federal appeals court upholds award of $10,002 against a correctional officer who allegedly "orchestrated" an unnecessary soaking with pepper spray of two inmates confined to their cell five hours after a prison riot had been quelled. Officer allegedly instructed a co-worker to soak the cell with pepper spray after one of the inmates questioned his alleged calling out "Niggers get naked." Lawrence v. Bowersox, #01-1813, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 14657 (8th Cir.). [2002 JB Sep]
     Prisoner's claim that officials' use of tear gas to enforce lockdown was an excessive use of force was contradicted by videotape showing that prisoners, including the plaintiff, did not return into their cells when the order to do so was initially given. Prisoner's claim that he "begged" for medical attention but that prison employees would not help him was also contradicted by videotape which showed officers asking him whether he needed medical attention and him replying that he did not. Fairweather v. Giles Dalby Correctional Facility, 154 F. Supp. 2d 921 (N.D. Tex. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
     284:115 Correctional officer did not impose cruel and unusual punishment when he sprayed an inmate in the face with pepper spray after the prisoner refused a direct order from his work supervisor and "questioned" an order from the officer. Jones v. Shields, #99-1869, 207 F.3d 491 (8th Cir. 2000).
     239:164 Requirement that prison guard undergo "mace training," involving her being sprayed in the face with pepper mace did not violate her right to due process or privacy or shock the conscience; federal court finds requirement "rationally related" to correctional department's interest in encouraging officers to "take care" when using pepper mace, to discourage "indiscriminate use" of it, and to teach the importance of "prompt remediation" of its effects. Ryder v. Freeman, 918 F.Supp. 157 (W.D.N.C. 1996).
     229:3 Policy directive on use of chemical agents, such as mace, against resisting prisoners did not create constitutionally protected liberty interest for violation of which Michigan state prisoner could sue correctional officer. McLaurin v. Morton, 48 F.3d 944 (6th Cir. 1995). [Cross-reference: Defenses: Qualified Immunity]. » Editor's Note: One other federal appeals court has also ruled that a denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity was immediately appealable even though the second claim of two civil rights damage claims would proceed to trial even if the qualified immunity appeal was successful. Green v. Brantley, 941 F.2d 1146 (11th Cir. 1991). In Schrob v. Catterson, 967 F.2d 929 (3d Cir. 1992), on the other hand, the court did not allow an immediate appeal of the denial of a motion to substitute the United States as a defendant (it would have replaced the individual defendants, thus relieving them of liability on certain claims) where the defendants would still be required to go to trial on other civil rights claims even if the substitution occurred.
     238:155 Use of pepper spray to force arrestee to disgorge crack cocaine from his mouth was a reasonable use of force and was not "outrageous." U.S. v. Holloway, 906 F.Supp. 1437 (D. Kan. 1995).