AELE LAW LIBRARY OF CASE SUMMARIES:
Corrections Law for
Jails, Prisons and Detention Facilities
Back
to list of subjects Back
to Legal Publications Menu
Prisoner Assault: By
Officers
Monthly Law Journal Article:
Staff Use of Force
Against Prisoners--Part I: Legal Standard and Individual Liability,
2008 (9) AELE Mo. L.J. 301.
The plaintiffs in
a wrongful death lawsuit concerning the death of an inmate after he was
forcibly removed from his cell by seven correctional officers sufficient
alleged facts which, if true, would show that the officers violated the
prisoner's clearly established Eighth Amendment rights, so that the defendants
were properly denied qualified immunity on those claims. Additionally,
when summary judgment was denied on certain claims based on the existence
of disputed issues of material fact, there was no jurisdiction to hear
an appeal of those denials. Iko v. Raley, No. 07-7569, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis
16607 (4th Cir.).
Federal appeals court upholds jury verdict
for defendant corrections officers in lawsuit brought by prisoner allegedly
injured by them when they used force to extract him from his cell. The
plaintiff prisoner admitted that he had a weapon in his pocket at the time
of the incident, and the evidence showed that he had been belligerent and
uncooperative, and that the prisoner had created a disturbance in his cell
block, taunted an officer, and that pepper spray and a 15 OC Stinger
grenade used against the prisoner, as well as tear gas, had little effect
and failed to subdue him. The officers then shot a 37MM Ferret OC powder
round, designed to break through a barricade, at the cell wall, but he
still allegedly refused to comply. They then dispensed a 28b Stinger 37
MM 60 Cal. rubber-ball round into the cell, and again failed to subdue
the prisoner. Another Ferret OC powder round fired into the cell then
went through a mattress that the prisoner used to barricade his cell door,
and hit him in the groin area, finally subduing him. Muhammad v. McCarrell,
No. 07-2235, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 16682 (8th Cir.).
Other prisoners beat up a detainee at a county
jail after word spread throughout the facility that he was charged with
child rape. The appeals court held that one defendant officer was not entitled
to qualified immunity in a lawsuit brought by the detainee for failure
to protect him, as this officer's own statements showed that he was aware
of facts which could have indicated that a substantial risk of harm of
such an assault existed and that he in fact drew the inference that the
risk existed. The court also held that there was a clearly established
right to be protected against assault under these circumstances. A claim
against a second officer for excessive use of force was rejected, because
the detainee himself testified that a blow to his neck did not hurt, and
there was no injury that could be objectively verified. Leary v. Livingston
County, No. 06-2603, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 12370 (6th Cir.).
A federal trial court granted a prisoner's
motion for reconsideration and vacation of summary judgment in favor of
a city in his lawsuit claiming that he was beaten and kicked by officers
during city prison intake procedures. The city had produced, in an untimely
manner, a corrections' sergeant's log. This log, which was a "critical
document" in the case, was "inexplicably" not produced by
the city during the discovery process, and was only made available after
summary judgment in the case had been granted in the city's favor. In granting
the city summary judgment, the court relied on the city's representation
that the log did not exist, and the detainee was unable to use information
contained in the log to respond to the motion for summary judgment. Shimoyama
v. City of Philadelphia, Civil Action No. 05-6299, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis
44690 (E.D. Pa.).
A prisoner did not state a claim for excessive
use of force based on a sergeant allegedly pressing a Taser against his
back and pressing him against elevator doors while transporting him. There
was no claim that the Taser was activated, and the alleged actions only
caused minimum discomfort, and failed to constitute a "malicious and
sadistic" application of force. Sawyer v. Green, No. 08-3083, 2008
U.S. App. Lexis 13119 (Unpub. 10th Cir.).
Correctional officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity in a lawsuit claiming that three of them beat a detainee
at a juvenile detention facility with nightsticks about his head and face
after he refused orders to remove his clothes. A fourth officer allegedly
watched and failed to intervene. The beating was allegedly severe enough
that the detainee required eleven stitches and a doctor at the hospital
believed that he might have bled to death without medical attention. The
court found that there was evidence from which a reasonable fact finder
could find that the force employed was used in a malicious and sadistic
manner, rather than in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
McReynolds v. Ala. Dept. of Youth Services, No. 2:04-cv-850, 2008 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 35070 (M.D. Ala.).
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.).
Removal of a prisoner from his misconduct
hearing by correctional officers and prison nurses did not violate his
First Amendment rights. His statement at the proceeding that the hearing
officer was a "foul and corrupted bitch" was not protected by
the First Amendment and constituted "insolence" in violation
of prison regulations, questioning the hearing officer's authority and
the proceeding's integrity. The court also found that the amount of force
used was minimal and reasonable under the circumstances. The prisoner also
failed to show deliberate indifference to his medical needs for his minor
cuts and lacerations. Lockett v. Suardini, No. 06-2392, 2008 U.S. App.
Lexis 10359 (6th Cir.).
A pretrial detainee failed to show that a
correctional officer used excessive force against him, or that a second
officer failed to intervene to prevent the excessive use of force. A videotape
of the incident showed that the plaintiff punched and hit an officer in
the face, causing her to fall, and that the other officer then struck the
plaintiff, pushed him to the floor, and handcuffed him. The force used
was only that required to regain control of the plaintiff, despite his
claim that the officers had "altered" the videotape. Johnson
v. Moeller, No. 07-3184, 2008 U.S. App. Lexis 6227 (7th Cir.).
Plaintiff prisoner was entitled to production
of pictures of six correctional officers who were allegedly present when
he claimed officers assaulted him, for the purpose of identifying his assailants
in a federal civil rights lawsuit. Murphy v. West, No. 04-CV-6615, 2008
U.S. Dist. Lexis 8435 (W.D.N.Y.).
While a prisoner allegedly suffered an "unfortunate
extent" of injuries as a result of a deputy's push or shove, the deputy
was acting in good faith to attempt to maintain or restore discipline,
and not maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. The
deputy was therefore entitled to summary judgment on an excessive force
claim. Cockrell v. Sparks, No. 07-10984, (11th Cir.).
In a lawsuit in which a prisoner claimed
that he was beaten on two occasions by correctional officers, the first
claim against the officers was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust
available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a), and a verdict in favor of the officers
on the second beating claim was upheld. The trial court did not act erroneously
in failing to give an "assault and battery" instruction separate
from the "cruel and unusual punishment" instruction given, as
the prisoner did not ask for his own instruction or present an argument
as to why the instruction given was allegedly defective. Finally, a directed
verdict in favor of a prison superintendent was properly decided as there
could be no supervisory liability when there was no finding of a constitutional
violation by the officers. Matthews v. Cordeiro, No. 05-1041, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 28613 (1st Cir.).
Evidence established a genuine issue of fact
as to whether two correction employees used excessive force against a detainee,
allegedly rendering him unconscious from a beating and the breaking of
his dental bridge. While these injuries were not recorded in the detainee's
medical records, there was an indication that he was kicked in the head,
and the jury could decide whether a videotape taken at the time showed
those injuries. The court did, however, uphold summary judgment in favor
of a third defendant because the evidence showed that he was not present
during the incident. Hasemeier v. Shepard, No. 07-10688, 2007 U.S. App.
Lexis 24719 (11th Cir.).
In a prior decision, Felder v. Howerton,
No. 07-10241, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11154 (11th Cir.), the court ruled that
there was no evidence, other than the prisoner's own "self-serving"
testimony, that prison officers had used any force against him, much less
that they used excessive force or that prison officials failed to take
action to prevent "beatings" by staff members. The record of
the case showed, at most, that after the prisoner started a confrontation,
he had a three millimeter abrasion on his chest, and there was also medical
evidence that this abrasion was actually suffered during a basketball game
he had played in five days before. The court further rejected the prisoner's
argument that he had been "tortured" in violation of 18 U.S.C.
Sec. 2340. In a rehearing, however, the appeals court vacated the summary
judgment in part. It ruled that the prisoner's sworn statement that the
officers beat him, as well as sworn testimony presented that they told
him that "all prisoners" were subjected to that treatment created
material issues of fact barring summary judgment on the prisoner's federal
constitutional claim. The appeals court, following the rehearing, still
upheld summary judgment on the "torture" claim. The prisoner,
the appeals court found, failed to show that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340A(a), imposing
criminal penalties for persons committing torture outside of the U.S.,
gave him any additional rights. Felder v. Howerton, 07-10241, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 22118 (11th Cir.).
Correctional officer who allegedly used a
cattle prod against an inmate who was merely working at his prison job
was not entitled to summary judgment. If it was true that the prisoner
was not causing any disruption or violating any prison rule, a reasonable
jury could find that there was no need to use any level of force. Payne
v. Parnell, No. 05-20687, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 21227 (5th Cir.).
Prisoner stated a claim for excessive use
of force against correctional officer who allegedly slammed the food slot
door of his cell on his hand three times without justification. Claims
against a supervising officer and a fellow officer who allegedly failed
to prevent the alleged use of force were properly dismissed, however. Espinoza
v. McDaniel, No. 3:06-CV-00542, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 58416 (D. Nev.).
Prisoner failed to provided any evidence
of an official city policy permitting or encouraging the excessive or unnecessary
use of force by sheriff's employees against arrestees, or a widespread
custom of such use of force, so that the city was entitled to summary judgment.
Ludaway v. City of Jacksonville, Florida, No. 07-10859, 2007 U.S. App.
21150 (11th Cir.).
There was no evidence from which a jury could
find that officers used excessive force in entering an inmate's cell and
restraining her after she was observed violently banging her head against
her cell wall. Plaintiff prisoners also failed to show deliberate indifference
to their serious mental health needs, when they received their prescribed
medication, and they could not demonstrate that the care they received
caused them any adverse symptoms. Bellotto v. County of Orange, No. 06-1185,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 19848 (2nd Cir.).
Even if a prisoner's claim was true that
a correctional officer slammed him against a wall, squeezed his nipples
and buttocks, and pulled on his testicles hard, causing him pain and discomfort,
this was not sufficient to show an Eighth Amendment violation, when the
force used was minimal. Further, the fact that there was no medical evidence
of any injury resulting from the incident was supportive of a finding that
the force used was not excessive. Rhoten v. Werholtz, No. 07-3064, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 14964 (10th Cir.).
A Maine state prison, as an agency of the
state, could not be sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for alleged
use of excessive force against a prisoner, because of Eleventh Amendment
Immunity, and the fact that the state is not a "person" subject
to such liability. To the extent that there could arguably be a state law
claim against the prison, there was no showing that the state had waived
its 11th Amendment immunity from a suit in federal court. Additionally,
the prison could not be held vicariously liable under federal law for the
actions of a prison officer on the basis that it was his employer. Warren
v. Maine State Prison, No. CV-07-24, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 42982 (D. Maine).
Prisoner failed to show that a warden had
the knowledge required to have acted with deliberate indifference to a
purported substantial risk that prison guards would use excessive force
against him. He claimed that the guards beat him in a room without cameras
where they took him, and subsequently denied him access to immediate medical
care for his injuries. The employment records of the officers failed to
show that they were an obvious risk to prisoners, and a trial judge's disagreement
with the warden's choices in disciplining one of the officers for allegedly
mistreating a prisoner by suspending him was not sufficient to support
a finding of deliberate indifference. Lenz v. Reed, No. 06-3017, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 14460 (8th Cir.).
Prisoner's claim that correctional employees
used excessive force against him was rejected after he failed to refute
the evidence presented by the defendants that the back pain he experienced
was the result of a medical condition--a degenerative disc disease he suffers
from, rather being caused a defendant's conduct. Appeals court also upholds
rejection of claims for denial of access to the courts and for purported
due process violations in connection with a disciplinary hearing in which
the prisoner was found not guilty of battery. Billups v. Hammon, No. 06-55274,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12672 (9th Cir.).
Prisoner presented a viable claim for use
of excessive force against correctional officer who allegedly punched him
in the eye, breaking the orbital bone in his face, while he was being carried
up some stairs in shackles following an incident in which the prisoner
was restrained. A videotape of the incident did not suffice to indicate
whether the injury was inflicted by the guard or by the prisoner on himself
after he twisted his body away while being carried. Claims against all
other defendants, including supervisory personnel and a prison nurse, were
dismissed. Christle v. Magles, No. 6:05cv334, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 35438
(E.D. Tex.).
The use of a Taser® against a prisoner
is not, by itself, a violation of constitutional rights when it is used
to obtain his obedience, and the plaintiff prisoner did not prove that
its use against him was objectively unreasonable under the circumstances.
A correctional officer was therefore entitled to qualified immunity on
the prisoner's claims against him individually. The prisoner had just suffered
minor injuries during an altercation with officers while receiving his
medication. He subsequently refused to obey orders to sit on his bunk while
officers re-entered his cell to retrieve some dropped keys, and the Taser®
was used against him to compel his compliance, after which the keys were
retrieved, and a nurse entered the cell to provide medical assistance.
Claims against the officer in his official capacity were barred by the
Eleventh Amendment, as the state of Kansas had not waived its immunity
against federal civil rights lawsuits for damages under the general language
of a state statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. Sec. 19-811. Hunter v. Young, No. 06-3371,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 13886 (10th Cir.).
There was no evidence, other than the prisoner's
own "self-serving" testimony, that prison officers had used any
force against him, much less that they used excessive force or that prison
officials failed to take action to prevent "beatings" by staff
members. The record of the case showed, at most, that after the prisoner
started a confrontation, he had a three millimeter abrasion on his chest,
and there was also medical evidence that this abrasion was actually suffered
during a basketball game he had played in five days before. The court further
rejected the prisoner's argument that he had been "tortured"
in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340. Felder v. Howerton, No. 07-10241,
2007 U.S. App. Lexis 11154 (11th Cir.).
Deputy sheriff was not entitled to qualified
immunity on prisoner's claim that he used excessive force against him by
throwing him to the floor and landing on top of him while he was shackled
at the wrists, waist and ankles, causing his head to hit the concrete floor,
and causing him to require stitches to close a laceration to the right
side of his head and to also suffer a separated right clavicle. If the
facts were as the inmate alleged, the force used violated his Eighth Amendment
rights and constituted a wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain. Long
v. Morris, No. 06-3089, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 32959 (D. Kan.).
Federal court declines to dismiss prisoner's
claim that an officer used excessive force and assaulted him when he declined
to state what his middle name was. The prisoner claimed injuries including
possible nerve damages, difficulty urinating, and difficulty breathing,
and these were not injuries considered to be minimal. Brewer v. Paugh,
No. 5:06CV98, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11393 (N.D.W.Va.).
Prisoner stated viable claim for excessive
use of force by alleging that he was placed in hand restraints, and taken
to a holding cell after his attempt to enter the prison library caused
a metal detector to sound, and then that a guard repeatedly tightened the
restraints on his hands for approximately 20 minutes, followed by kicking
him to the ground. Viable claims were also asserted against other defendants
who allegedly either threatened the prisoner for his prior involvement
in litigation or else "stood by and watched" while other persons
threatened or assaulted him. Clark v. Argutto, No. 06-12350, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 6445 (11th Cir.).
Warden was not entitled to summary judgment
on prisoner's claim that he had been warned by a previous warden about
certain guards with violent tendencies who "might kill" a prisoner,
including the guard who allegedly attacked him and broke his jaw. The warden,
instead of firing the guard in question or taking other corrective action,
allegedly promoted him to captain. Mathews v. Crosby, No. 05-12515, 2007
U.S. App. Lexis 6156 (11th Cir.).
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.).
Deputy used reasonable force against inmate
in light of prisoner's history of violence and his violent response to
requests to step outside, including his scuffle with deputies. McBride
v. Hilton, No. 06-30146, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2505 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner's own actions, including the use
of "disparaging" language during argument with officer who allegedly
denied request to use telephone, created a confrontation resulting in the
use of force to remove him from the cell tier. Officer's actions were reasonable
under the circumstances. Any injuries were minor and occurred only after
the prisoner allegedly engaged in the destruction of a chair. Brown v.
Terry, No. 05-343, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3085 (D. Del.). [N/R]
Prisoner who claimed that he was beaten by
unknown prison guards failed to present evidence of inadequate training
or hiring policies which could support a claim for liability on the part
of the county. Aguirre v. Nueces County, Texas, No. 06-40317, 2007 U.S.
App. Lexis 3028 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner's injuries from correctional officers'
alleged excessive force against him--including minor abrasions on a knee,
a small scratch on his chin, and two minor bumps, were insufficient under
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e) to constitute physical injury under a provision
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act barring recovery of damages for mental
or emotional injuries in the absence of physical injuries. The plaintiff
was also not entitled to punitive damages since he did not show that the
defendants had the required state of mind to justify such an award. Since
the prisoner had not even asked for nominal damages, the defendants were
entitled to summary judgment. Glosson v. Morales, No. 05-CV-707, 2007 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 1603 (S.D. Cal.). [N/R]
Former jail detainee failed to show that
the use of force against him during his incarceration had amounted to unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain and suffering, entitling defendants to summary
judgment on his excessive force claim. Clarke v. Blais, Civil No. 05-177,
2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 89941 (D. Me.). [N/R]
Alleged use of malicious and sadistic force,
if true, is a violation of clearly established law, so that qualified immunity
is not an available defense. Minor prisoner claimed that he was assaulted
by prison guards after he attempted to make another complaint against a
guard who had been previously suspended based on his first complaint, and
that at least one of the guards involved in the alleged assault continued
to hit him after he had already suffered injuries. The court also noted
that the injuries suffered required eleven stitches to the plaintiff's
head. McReynolds v. Alabama Dept. of Youth Services, No. 06-12542, 2006
U.S. App. Lexis 26945 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Prisoner's injuries from officer's alleged
physical attack on prisoner were not minor, as he suffered some abrasions,
and had prior conditions aggravated by the incident. Further, statements
from some witnesses that the prisoner, at the time of the incident, was
acting in a cooperative manner supported a possible conclusion that the
officer was acting in bad faith during the dispute, so that the officer
was not entitled to qualified immunity. Brown v. Lippard, No. 05-41277,
2006 U.S. App. Lexis 30522 (5th Cir.). [N/R]
Despite the fact that a prisoner had been
convicted of assault on a prison staff member, he was entitled to pursue
his claim that an officer used excessive force against him when he placed
his arms out of an opening on his cell door to have his handcuffs taken
off, resulting in his wrist being cut to the bone. A finding that the officer
used excessive force did not necessarily require the overturning of the
disciplinary conviction, so that the officer was not entitled to summary
judgment. Woods v. Lozer, No. 3:05-1080, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 83785 (M.D.
Tenn.), adopted by, and summary judgment denied, Woods v. Lozer, 2006 U.S.
Dist. Lexis 83766 (M.D. Tenn.). [N/R]
Officer was properly granted judgment in
prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he used excessive force against him in
trying to separate him from another prisoner during an inmate fight. Even
if it were assumed that the plaintiff prisoner did stop fighting just before
the officer intervened, the officer could not have known which of the inmates
involved in the altercation would lunge at the other one again, so that
his method of intervention was a reasonable method of stopping the fight.
Ensman v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction, No. 06AP-592, 2006
Ohio App. Lexis 6691 (10th Dist.). [N/R]
Prison shift commander was not shown to have
used excessive force in removing a prisoner's necklace, when wearing it
was a violation of institutional rules, and the force applied was shown
to have been applied in a "good faith" attempt to maintain discipline,
rather than sadistically or maliciously to cause harm. The prisoner also
failed to show that he suffered any injuries from the officer's actions.
Mullis v. Cobb County Board of Commissioners, No. 06-11930, 2006 U.S. App.
Lexis 26371 (11th Cir.). [N/R]
Alabama prisoner who sued correctional officer
who allegedly injured his finger by kicking metal tray door failed to show
that he suffered a serious injury or that the officer acted maliciously
or sadistically, barring a federal civil rights claim. Johnson v. Moody,
No. 06-12422, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 26988 (11th Cir.). [2006 JB Dec]
Despite prisoner's statement that he and
another inmate he was being housed with had had "problems," prison
officials were not liable for cellmate's subsequent assault on prisoner,
when the plaintiff had failed to identify a specific prior incident from
which it could be inferred that there was a substantial risk of harm in
housing the two prisoners together. Prisoner also failed to show that correctional
officers used excessive force against him while restraining him following
a fight with another prisoner. McBride v. Rivers, No. 05-13328, 170 Fed.
Appx. 648 (11th Cir. 2006). [N/R]
Prisoner failed to show that correctional
officers used excessive force in placing him in and later extracting him
from a holding cell. Young v. Ogle, No. 05-35581, 171 Fed. Appx. 651 (9th
Cir. 2006). [N/R]
In a criminal prosecution of correctional
officers for alleged conspiracy and deprivation of prisoner's constitutional
rights, the prosecution was not required to show that any individual prisoner
suffered a certain level of, or type of, injury to show excessive use of
force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242. Convictions
of officers upheld. U.S. v. Lavallee, No. 03-1515, 439 F.3d 670 (10th Cir.
2006) [N/R]
Director of Colorado prisons, in authorizing
use of special operations team to remove a prisoner from his cell to search
for a loaded gun, was not liable for the officers' alleged excessive use
of force, causing injuries to his jaw and testicles. No evidence showed
that he either authorized or knew of any excessive force, or had any duty
to personally supervise the team. Serna v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., No.
04-1241, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 18687 (10th Cir.). [2006 JB Sep]
Prison superintendent was not entitled to
dismissal of prisoner's claim that he was aware of, but deliberately ignored
a correctional officer's repeated "malicious acts" against him,
which resulted in the officer striking him. Locicero v. O'Connell, No.
04 Civ. 07708, 419 F. Supp. 2d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). [N/R]
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]
An alleged one-month delay in x-raying a
prisoner's hand after a nurse tentatively diagnosed him as having a fractured
finger was not shown to be anything more than negligence, which was insufficient
for a federal constitutional claim. Additionally, federal appeals court
finds, no reasonably jury could find that correctional employees used excessive
force against the inmate during the incident that led to his injuries,
when he continued to assault the officers even after he was restrained,
and was subsequently criminally convicted for his actions. Johnson v. Hamilton,
No. 05-1453, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 16767 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Aug]
Former warden was not entitled to qualified
immunity in lawsuit over death of death-row prisoner allegedly beaten to
death by prison guards. Evidence presented was sufficient to create a factual
issue as to whether there was a widespread history of abuse by guards,
whether the warden knew of the violent propensities of certain guards involved
in the beating, and whether he acted with deliberate indifference to a
known risk of harm. Valdes v. Crosby, No. 05-13065, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis
13401 (11th Cir.). [2006 JB Jul]
Correctional officer was not entitled to
summary judgment in prisoner's state law assault and battery lawsuit when
there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether he continued to strike
the prisoner after he was handcuffed. The prisoner initially became belligerent
when he refused an order to submit to a haircut. Quinlan v. Jones, No.
2030621, 922 So. 2d 899 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). [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]
Detainee's claim that sheriff and two officers
used excessive force against him in entering his cell, physically restraining
him, and using pepper spray against him reinstated by federal appeals court.
Trial judge improperly decided credibility of witnesses in granting summary
judgment for defendants, when there were disputed factual issues about
whether the detainee was combatively resisting orders at the time of the
incident. Norton v. City of Marietta, No. 04-7133, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis
28093 (10th Cir.). [2006 JB Feb]
A prisoner's participation in an internal
affairs investigation concerning his alleged beating by correctional officers
did not substitute for the requirement that the prisoner exhaust available
administrative remedies before pursuing a lawsuit for damages. Panaro v.
City of N. Las Vegas, No. 04-15750, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 28080 (9th Cir.).
[2006 JB Feb]
Correctional officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity on claim that they continued to use force against detainee
after they had subdued him, resulting in his death from positional asphyxia.
They were also not entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that they
waited fourteen minutes after he became unconscious and stopped breathing,
to summon medical assistance. Bozeman v. Orum, No. 04-11073, 422 F.3d 1265
(11th Cir. 2005). [2006 JB Feb]
Delaware prisoner's claim that correctional
officers assaulted him on two occasions while he was handcuffed him, and
hit him in order to "provoke a response," if true, established
violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. Davis v. Carroll, No. CIV.A.
03-131, 390 F. Supp. 2d 415 (D. Del. 2005). [N/R]
Genuine issues existed as to whether warden
was deliberately indifferent to alleged widespread abuse of prisoners by
officers, making him liable for a prisoner's death after an alleged beating
of officers. Warden was not entitled to qualified immunity against supervisory
liability claim by prisoner's estate. Valdes v. Crosby, No. 301CV799, 390
F. Supp. 2d 1084 (M.D. Fla. 2005). [N/R]
Trial court properly reduced jury's award
of $75,000 in "nominal" damages to $1 in pre-trial detainee's
lawsuit, when jury specifically found that jailer used excessive force
against the detainee but did not cause any substantial injury. Corpus v.
Bennett, No. 04-2603, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 26650 (8th Cir.). [2006 JB Jan]
Federal trial judge overturns jury's award of $1
in nominal damages and $45,000 in punitive damages to prisoner who claimed
that correctional officers used excessive force against him while escorting
him to a location in the prison when he resisted going where he was told
to go. The trial judge found that there was absolutely no evidence introduced
at the trial indicating physical injury of any kind, not even a bruise
or swelling, and that the prisoner did not even file a medical complaint
arising from the incident. Under these circumstances, the court concluded,
no reasonable jury could have concluded that the prisoner suffered any
injuries in the incident that were more than "de minimus" (minimal).
Willis v. Youngblood, No. CIV. RDB-02-2853, 384 F. Supp. 2d 883 (D. Md.
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]
North Carolina county only waived sovereign
immunity to the extent of liability insurance purchased. Inmate who was
awarded $49,500 by jury on his claim that a deputy sheriff assaulted him,
therefore, could recover nothing, as the county's liability insurance only
provided coverage for claims in excess of $250,000. Cunningham v. Riley,
611 S.E.2d 423 (N.C. App. 2005). [2005 JB Dec]
Prisoner's conviction on charges of assaulting
a correctional officer did not bar him from pursuing his claim that officers
used excessive force against him in connection with the same fight, since
his claims of alleged excessive force by the officers was not raised in
the criminal proceeding and was not relevant to it. Jeanty v. County of
Orange, No. 03 CIV. 8043, 379 F. Supp. 2d 533 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). [N/R]
Officer accused of using excessive force
against prisoner who assaulted him was not entitled to dismissal of the
lawsuit based on the prisoner's alleged failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies. The prisoner filed a grievance concerning the officer's action,
and allegedly failed to appeal further since there was never any response
to his grievance. Brengettcy v. Horton, No. 03-3813, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis
19362 (7th Cir.). [2005 JB Oct]
Claim that prison guards "verbally abused"
prisoner by cursing at him was insufficient to support a federal civil
rights claim. Perry v. Kramer, No. 03-15833, 121 Fed. Appx. 191 (9th Cir.
2005). [N/R]
Trial court did not abuse its discretion
in refusing to provide plaintiff inmate with an appointed lawyer in his
lawsuit claiming excessive use of force against him, since the prisoner
was able to articulate the issues in his case on his own and the case did
not require the use of expert testimony. Shabazz v. Felsnik, No. 04-2367,
129 Fed. Appx. 726 (3rd Cir. 2005). [N/R]
Jury instructions by trial court properly
excluded prisoner's requested instructions that "malicious" use
of force, regardless of amount of force, is always "per se" a
violation of the Eighth Amendment. Trial judge also properly dismissed
prisoner's racial and religious discrimination claims. Baskerville v. Mulvaney,
No. 03-0348, 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 10190 (2nd Cir.). [2005 JB Jul]
Officer did not use excessive force in the
course of attempting to restrain prisoner who refused to submit to handcuffing,
forced his way out of his cell, and kept resisting even after he was tackled
in the hallway. Batons were only used to strike the prisoner after he had
attempted to hit an officer. Davis v. Agosto, No. 02-6141, 89 Fed. Appx.
523 (6th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Officer did not use excessive force in striking
a prisoner in a "reflex action" with a heavy trap-door key after
the prisoner grabbed him by his shirt through the trap door and tried to
pull him down. Proctor v. Engstrom, #03-2547, 95 Fed. App. 192 (8th Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Inmate's claim that "some or all"
of the defendant correctional officers "may" have participated
in his alleged beating was insufficient to provide the officers fair notice
of the prisoner's claims against them, as required to support his excessive
force lawsuit. Bright v. Gillis, No. 03-1118, 89 Fed. Appx. 802 (3rd Cir.
2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of
eight defendants from prisoners' excessive force lawsuit when the evidence
showed that they did not come into physical contact with the plaintiffs
during their extraction from their cells following disturbance and their
subsequent transport to segregation unit. Jury's finding that excessive
force was not used by remaining defendants also precluded a claim against
the dismissed defendants for failure to intervene. Harper v. Albert, No.
00-2758, 400 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2005). [2005 JB May]
When a prisoner admitted that he refused
to comply with an officer's requests, the officer's pushing against the
prisoner's face with his hand for the purpose of forcing him into his cell
was not an excessive use of force. Cain v. Ambriz, No. 04-40632, 114 Fed.
Appx. 600 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit against
prison guards, claiming that they used excessive force against him, was
barred by his prior disciplinary conviction of assault and resisting the
guards arising out of the same incident. An award of damages in the prisoner's
lawsuit, which was based on the assertion that he had not physically resisted
the guards, would necessarily call into question his disciplinary conviction,
which had not been set aside, so his lawsuit was barred under the rule
stated in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Wooten v. Law, No. 04-1159,
118 Fed. Appx. 66 (7th Cir. 2004).[N/R]
Correctional officer did not use excessive
force in using restraints to keep prisoner seated in wheelchair while escorting
him to optometrist when prisoner was repeatedly moving himself between
the wheelchair and another seat in the doctor's waiting room. Munera v.
Metro West Detention Center, No. 02-23612-CIV, 351 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D.
Fla. 2004).[N/R]
Nurse and officer did not use excessive force
in restraining prisoner at nursing station after he became "upset
and agitated" when nurse took, and indicated that she would not return,
his non-prescription and non-authorized glasses. The nurse and officer
acted for the purposes of maintaining order and any resulting bruising
and swelling was not serious enough to require medical attention. Mason
v. Peters, No. 01-CV-62481, 346 F. Supp. 2d 396 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [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]
Complexities of the legal issues in a lawsuit
brought by an immigration detainee claiming that he was attacked by correctional
officers while in a facility operated by a private corporation required
the vacating of a jury award for the defendants when the trial court failed
to appoint a lawyer to represent the detainee. Agyeman v. Corrections Corporation
of America, No. 03-16068, 390 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Mar]
Correctional officer accused of kicking a
handcuffed prisoner's genitals was not entitled to qualified immunity on
prisoner's claim that this constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Watts
v. McKinney, No. 03-16665 2005 U.S. App. Lexis 337 (9th Cir. 2005). [2005
JB Feb]
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]
Prisoner ruled to have adequately exhausted
available administrative remedies even when he had not "technically
exhausted" procedures prescribed by state law for inmate grievances
because he had pursued both formal and informal avenues to present his
grievances and did not receive any formal response to his grievance until
five months after it was filed. Defendant correctional officers were therefore
not entitled to summary judgment in the prisoner's lawsuit claiming that
they had assaulted him. Jenkins v. Raub, No. 01-CV-64221, 310 F. Supp.
2d 502 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Evidence in prisoner's excessive force lawsuit
against a correctional officer supported the officer's contention that
he only used a reasonable amount of force to restrain him after the prisoner
banged his own head against the wall of a prison infirmary. Under these
circumstances, no excessive use of force was shown. Jones v. Cornutt, No.
03-10302, 100 Fed. Appx. 251 (5th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court orders further proceedings
concerning whether prisoner was justified in failing to file a grievance
concerning correctional officers' alleged assault on him by their threats
of retaliation if he did so. Hemphill v. State of New York, #02-0164, 380
F.3d 680 (2d Cir. 2004). [2005 JB Jan]
Illinois prisoner awarded $28,000 in compensatory
damages and $22,000 in punitive damages on his claim that he was beaten
by correctional officers who allegedly were angry that he was taking too
much time to pack his property prior to a transfer to another facility.
Mickey v. Dargis, #99C-7281, U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Illinois, reported in
Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, p. 25 (October 1, 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]
Prisoner's claim that several correctional
officers physically assaulted him was not relevant to whether he was guilty
of disobeying a direct order from an officer concerning keeping his hands
in his pockets while being escorted from his cell. Prisoner therefore had
no right to present such a "defense" at the disciplinary hearing.
Claudio v. Selsky, 772 N.Y.S. 2d 424 (A.D. 3d Dept. 2004). [N/R]]
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that he was beaten and kicked "into
submission" by them when they found him lying on his bunk, and he
allegedly did not obey orders to get on the floor. The prisoner, who had
allegedly caused two disturbances that day, claimed he was being quiet
at the time, and that the officers bashed his head inside of or into a
toilet. Simms v. Bruce, No. 03-2181, 104 Fed. Appx. 853 (4th Cir. 2004).
[N/R]
Detainee failed to establish that detention
center guards used excessive force against him. Evidence showed that he
verbally confronted them and physically pulled back from a booking counter
when they tried to frisk him to determine if he possessed any concealed
weapons. This determination was supported by a videotape of the incident
in question. Tapia v. City of Albuquerque, No. 03-2133, 101 Fed. Appx.
795 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner's civil rights lawsuit claiming
that correctional officers assaulted him was barred on the basis of his
failure to exhaust available administrative remedies as required by 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1997e. While he did write letters of complaint to prison officials,
he did not report the alleged assault to the officers' immediate supervisor,
and did not appeal adverse determinations concerning his complaint. Stephenson
v. Dunford, 320 F. Supp. 2d 44 (W.D.N.Y. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner was properly awarded $1,500 in compensatory
damages for allegedly being left in restraint chair for long periods of
time, and $500 for alleged excessive use of force against him, but trial
court properly did not award punitive damages in light of fact that the
prisoner admitted disobeying orders, and that the facility had not developed
policies governing the use of the restraint chair. Guerra v. Drake, #03-3137,
371 F.3d 404 (8th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB Sep]
Federal appeals court upholds enhanced 46-month
sentence imposed on correctional officer who pled guilty to conspiracy
to violate the civil rights of jail detainees he was supervising, based
on unusual vulnerability of prisoner with Tourette's syndrome to assault.
The officer failed to show reversible error in the trial court's finding
that he had knowledge of the prisoner's unusual vulnerability of Tourette's
syndrome, and the trial court noted that, prior to the alleged beating
of the prisoner, either the defendant or another officer was heard yelling,
"we'll beat the Tourette's out of you." United States v. Donnelly,
#03-2022, 370 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Inmate in New York correctional facility
could not pursue federal civil rights lawsuit against county, county prosecutor,
or county sheriff claiming that they violated his constitutional rights
because they failed to prosecute correctional officers for allegedly threatening
him on three occasions, in the absence of any allegation that the failure
to prosecute was the result of any official policy or custom. Additionally,
neither prosecutor nor sheriff were in a supervisory position within the
prison hierarchy, and therefore did not have a duty to protect him from
these alleged threats. Lewis v. Gallivan, 315 F. Supp. 2d 313 (W.D.N.Y.
2004). [N/R]
California prisoner's lawsuit claiming that
corrections officers assaulted him dismissed for failure to totally exhaust
available administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a). Entire complaint dismissed when it
contained a mixture of both exhausted and unexhausted claims, although
prisoner could, if he wanted, file a new complaint concerning only claims
on which he had exhausted administrative remedies. Mubarak v. California
Department of Corrections, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1057 (S.D. Cal. 2004). [N/R]
Prisoner was excused from having to exhaust
administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights lawsuit against
jail employees' alleged use of excessive force against him both in reliance
of then applicable case law later rejected by U.S. Supreme Court, and also
because his transfer to another facility made administrative remedies at
the county jail no longer "available" to him. Rodriguez v. Westchester
County Jail Corr. Dept., No. 02-0325, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 12488 (2nd Cir.
2004). [2004 JB Aug]
Prison official was entitled to qualified
immunity against prisoner's claim that he used excessive force against
him when handcuffing him, resulting in a lacerated wrist and injured thumb.
The prisoner admitted that he violated facility cuffing procedures by withdrawing
his uncuffed hand and disobeying the officer's orders, and defendant reasonably
believed that the plaintiff prisoner was trying to pull the cuffs into
his cell in order to possibly use them as a weapon. Avery v. Anderson,
No. 03-4213, 94 Fed. Appx. 735 (10th Cir. 2004). [N/R]
Correctional officers were not entitled to
qualified immunity from excessive force claim by previously brain-damaged
pre-trial detainee who they allegedly caused severe facial and head injuries
in the course of a struggle to apply restraints to his wrists after he
refused to get on the water-covered floor of his cell. Detainee's behavior
of banging on cell walls and doors and tossing toilet water around his
cell to "protest" not being allowed out of his cell, however,
was not "protected speech," so that detainee's First Amendment
retaliation claim was dismissed. Simms v. Hardesty, 303 F. Supp. 2d 656
(D.Md. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner Assault: By Officer
Prisoner awarded $1,000 against one of two
defendant correctional officers on his claim for excessive use of force
against him was also entitled to $1,500 in attorneys' fees as a prevailing
party under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(d) (2) limiting awards against defendants
for attorneys' fees to 150% of award for damages. Farella v. Hockaday,
304 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (C.D. Ill. 2004). [N/R]
Federal appeals court upholds dismissal of
claims against warden, videographer and corrections officer who did not
have physical contact with prisoner but who witnessed his transfer to segregation
unit in the absence of any evidence that they ordered or condoned the excessive
use of force by others. Court orders further proceedings, however, as to
whether prisoner was unnecessarily beaten once he arrived in cell. Fillmore
v. Page, No. 02-3208, 358 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004). [2004 JB May]
Genuine factual issues as to whether correctional
officers suffocated detainee after he stated his desire to surrender during
altercation barred summary judgment on excessive force claim brought by
detainee's estate. Bozeman v. Orum, 302 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 2004).
[N/R]
Correctional officers who allegedly knew
that detainee was diabetic and who failed to provide him with food or insulin
despite his complaints could be liable for deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs. Federal appeals court orders further proceedings
on medical care issue and claim that officers used excessive force in response
to prisoner's request for food or medicine. Lolli v. County of Orange,
#02-56309, 351 F.3d 410 (9th Cir. 2003). [2004 JB Apr]
Prisoner's notice of his intent to file a
claim against the state concerning injuries inflicted on him during his
removal from his cell by correctional officers was inadequate when it failed
to specify the nature of his medical negligence claim. Motion to dismiss
claim upheld. Cendales v. State, 770 N.Y.S.2d 174 (A.D. Dept. 3 2003).
[N/R]
Prison officials granted summary judgment
on prisoner's claim that he was beaten by correctional officers after defendants
presented evidence supporting their contention that he had failed to exhaust
available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a).
Arnold v. Goetz, 245 F. Supp. 2d 527 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Plaintiff prisoner was not entitled to an
evidentiary hearing concerning claims that correctional officials stripped
and beat him, when claims were properly dismissed on the basis of sovereign
immunity and the statute of limitations. Cesspooch v. Federal Bureau of
Prisons, No. 02-1538, 84 Fed. Appx. 30 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Correctional officers could not be held liable
for deliberate indifference to assault on prisoner by fellow officer, when
there was no prior indication that the attack would take place and when
they immediately intervened to remove the alleged attacker from the prisoner.
Carico v. Benton, Ireland, and Stovall, #02-1340, 68 Fed. Appx. 632 (6th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Correctional officer did not use excessive
force in handcuffing a prisoner who allegedly threatened him and then escorting
him to the shift commander's office. The prisoner initially said nothing
to the shift commander about the handcuffs, and when he later complained
that one of the handcuffs was too tight, it was loosened. Further, the
officer used the handcuffs to maintain or restore discipline, rather than
"maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm."
Stanton v. Furlong, #02-11336, 73 Fed. Appx. 332 (10th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court finds that a prisoner
can exhaust his administrative remedies by presenting his complaints to
prison officials, even if they refuse to address the grievance because
it was untimely under prison rules. To pursue a claim in his subsequent
lawsuit, however, the grievance must have provided prison officials notice
of the nature of the complaint. Plaintiff prisoner did not, in his grievance,
provide notice that he was asserting a failure to protect claim against
correctional officers who allegedly saw a fellow officer beat him but failed
to intervene, but $70,000 in damages awarded against officer who allegedly
beat him. Thomas v. Woolum, #01-3227, 337 F.3d 720 (6th Cir. 2003). [2003
JB Dec]
Lawsuit by New York prisoners against over
fifty correctional employees concerning more than forty separate and unrelated
incidents at fourteen different prisons over a period of almost ten years
was properly dismissed, federal appeals court rules. Complaint failed to
establish the existence of a policy or practice existing throughout the
state correctional system or even within one prison which caused a violation
of Eighth Amendment rights. Claims included alleged assaults by correctional
officers, failure to protect inmates from assaults by other prisoners,
and failure to provide medical care for injuries. Additionally, none of
the plaintiffs stated that they had exhausted available administrative
remedies prior to filing suit. Webb v. Goord, #02-0097(L), 340 F.3d 105 (2nd
Cir. 2003). [2003 JB Nov]
Prisoner could not pursue a federal civil
rights lawsuit alleging that correctional officers assaulted him without
provocation and used excessive force against him when success in his claim
for damages would imply the invalidity of his disciplinary conviction for
assault and battery and "insolence" arising from the same incident.
The prisoner's claims were barred by the principles established in Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), since his disciplinary conviction had
not been set aside. Denham v. Shroad, No. 02-1821, 56 Fed. Appx. 692 (6th
Cir. 2003). [N/R]
State-established jail authority which held
immigration detainees in custody under a contract with the federal government
acted under "color of state law" for purposes of one such detainee's
excessive force claim arising out of actions of correctional officers.
Federal contract did not specify how the authority was to supervise its
guards and the detainee's claim alleged failure to adequately train officers
and "condonation" of their use of excessive force. Jarno v. Lewis,
256 F. Supp. 2d 499 (E.D. Va. 2003). [N/R]
Federal appeals court rules that correctional
officers' use of force in restraining detainee, which resulted in his death
from a compression injury to his neck, was not excessive. The detainee
was an "exceptionally large and strong" man and evidence showed
that he became violent in his cell and after he was let out of his cell.
Further, there was no evidence that the officers intentionally attempted
to choke the prisoner. Walters v. County of Charleston, No. 02-1297, 63
Fed. Appx. 116 (4th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prison officials were entitled to amend their
response to inmate's lawsuit claiming that correctional employees assaulted
him to assert a defense of failure to exhaust available dministrative remedies.
While they were aware of the defense earlier, the law was not clear that
it applied to the circumstances of this lawsuit prior to the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516 (2002), ruling that
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(a)'s requirement of exhaustion of remedies applies
to all prisoners "seeking redress for prison circumstances or occurrences."
Livingston v. Piskor, 215 F.R.D. 84 (W.D.N.Y. 2003). [N/R]
Mere claim that a supervisory prison official
was the "maximum authority" at a prison did not serve as a basis
for liability for an alleged assault on an inmate by correctional officers,
in the absence of any allegation of personal involvement or other proper
basis for responsibility. Durran v. Selsky, 251 F. Supp. 2d 1208 (W.D.N.Y.
2003). [2003 JB Aug]
Because the plaintiff was a prisoner when
he brought his lawsuit concerning an alleged assault by prison personnel
and forced medication, his failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies required dismissal of his lawsuit, despite the fact that he had
subsequently been released from custody while his lawsuit was pending,
federal appeals court rules. Cox v. Mayer, No. 02-5102, 2003 U.S. App.
Lexis 11554 (6th Cir.). [2003 JB Jul]
Prison superintendent could not be held liable
for correctional officer's alleged unprovoked assault on prisoner when
he had no reason to know of any particular risk to the inmate prior to
the incident, and no personal participation in the incident. Prisoner also
had no due process right to have his grievance about the alleged assault
thoroughly investigated. Torres v. Mazzuca, 246 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y.
2003). [2003 JB Jul]
Using a plastic medication box to beat back
a prisoner's hand after he reached his arm through the trap in the door
of his cell in violation of prison rules was not an excessive use of force.
Officer's action only led to minor injuries and the force used was proportionate
to the threat the prisoner's actions presented. White v. Matti, #02-2761,
58 Fed. Appx. 636 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Correctional officers assessed $15,000 in
compensatory and $30,000 in punitive damages for allegedly using excessive
force to restrain 60-year-old prisoner after refusing to look at his written
medical restriction offered in explanation for why he was sitting rather
than standing in medical clinic's waiting area. Jackson v. Austin, 241
F. Supp. 2d 1313 (D. Kan. 2003). [2003 JB Jun]
Jury's verdict in favor of defendant correctional
officers in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that they used excessive force
against him upheld. Based on the evidence, the jury could reasonably have
believed that the officers' testimony was more credible than the inmate's,
and that they used only the force necessary to respond to the prisoner's
"physical provocations" during the four incidents at issue. Pickett
v. Lindsay, #01-3755, 56 Fed. Appx. 718 (7th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
Prison "mailbox" rule applied to
prisoner's federal civil rights complaint concerning his alleged assault
in a county jail, so that it was considered filed in a timely manner when
it was placed in the prison mail system on the last day of the statute
of limitations, despite the fact that it was not received by the federal
trial court until five days after the statute of limitations expired. Sulik
v. Taney County, Missouri, No. 02-1397 316 F.3d 813 (8th Cir. 2003). [N/R]
Prisoner complied adequately with the exhaustion
of administrative remedies requirement when he submitted a grievance concerning
his alleged physical mistreatment by correctional officers which was not
responded to in any way. Abney v. County of Nassau, 237 F. Supp. 2d 278
(E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
Prisoner convicted by military general court
martial was not subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in violation
of his Eighth Amendment rights during his confinement after trial when
a military guard allegedly hit or squeezed his left testicle during a frisk
for weapons. While the guard's action was rough enough to cause a painful
and permanent injury to his testicle, satisfying the "objective"
component of the legal test for excessive use of force, there was an absence
of evidence that the guard intentionally inflicted the injury. "This
was a onetime, accidental injury," the appeals court concluded, for
which the prisoner "received timely and appropriate medical treatment."
United States v. Roth, Army 9600441, 57 Military Justice Reporter 740 (Army
Ct. Crim. App. 2002). [N/R]
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]
Even if officer's actions in punching a handcuffed
prisoner could be considered "inappropriate," federal appeals
court states, his alleged single punch to the prisoner's shoulder to avoid
being spit on was a minimal use of physical force which did not violate
the prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. Reyes v. Chinnici, #01-2142, 54
Fed. Appx. 44 (3rd 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.]
Jury awards $15,555 to prisoner allegedly
grabbed and thrown against a wall by a deputy who was escorting him to
testify in a court proceeding. The prisoner claimed that the deputy did
this to punish him for comments he made in the courtroom and that he was
shackled and handcuffed at the time of the incident. Jones v. Seddon, No.
01CV3890 (E.D. Pa. July 15, 2002), reported in The National Law Journal,
p. B3 (Sept. 30 2002). [N/R]
A prison warden could not be held vicariously
liable for the alleged beating of a prisoner by unknown guards during a
prison riot, when there was no claim that he was directly involved in the
incident or encouraged the guards' alleged actions. Prisoner's claims against
four guards allegedly involved were barred by a one-year statute of limitations
when he failed to commence the action against them within a year. Coleman
v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corrections, #01-3169, 46 Fed. Appx. 765 (6th
Cir. 2002).[N/R]
Federal appeals court orders new trial on
damages following jury's award of $750,000 in compensatory and $750,000
in punitive damages to prisoner who claimed prison guards beat him in his
cell and later, resulting in months of wheelchair confinement. Trial judge
improperly told jury that they could award damages for mental or emotional
distress when the plaintiff prisoner had said he was not seeking any. Poullard
v. Turner, #01-30587, 298 F.3d 421 (5th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Jan]
Prisoner could not pursue lawsuit for damages
against correctional officers he claimed attacked him without provocation
when he had not previously overturned disciplinary violations for assault
and battery against the officers arising from the same incident. Hinton
v. Hansen, #9201447, 47 Fed. Appx. 325 (6th Cir. 2002). [2003 JB Jan]
Georgia prisoner was appropriately awarded
$25,000 in compensatory damages on claim that correctional officers used
excessive force against him, but punitive damage awards were limited by
the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and further proceedings
were required to determine whether they were appropriately necessary to
deter future misconduct. Reduction of attorneys' fees also required to
reflect only hours expended on successful claims. Johnson v. Breeden, #00-14090,
280 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Oct]
Inmate was a "prevailing party"
after he was awarded only $1 in nominal damages in his lawsuit accusing
correctional officers of using excessive force against him, but an award
of attorneys' fees was not warranted in view of his limited success, since
a jury found in favor of one of the two officers, he had sought $790,000
in damages, the case did not involve "significant legal issues,"
and there was no injunctive relief granted. Ciaprazi v. County of Nassau,
195 F. Supp. 22d 398 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). [N/R]
City correctional officer did not use excessive
force against prisoner who was uncooperative and acted "erratically"
during the booking process and intake search, regardless of whether the
Fourteenth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment standards were applied, federal
appeals court rules. Williams v. City of Las Vegas, #00-17487, 34 Fed.
Appx. 297 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 JB Aug]
Prisoner who claimed that correctional officer
assaulted him in retaliation for his prior lawsuits against correctional
officers did not present an adequate claim that other prison officials
or employees knew of the risk of this happening and were deliberately indifferent
to it. Ribot-Carino v. Laboy, 196 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Puerto Rico 2002).
[2002 JB Aug]
Prison guard's alleged actions of shoving
prisoner against a wall, poking him in the chest, and yelling at him in
a threatening manner, all in reaction to the prisoner writing him a threatening
letter, did not violate the Eighth Amendment, since it involved "minimal
force" intended to maintain or restore discipline. Rendelman v. U.S.,
#99-56858, 32 Fed. Appx. 804 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
While there was insufficient evidence to
hold county liable for alleged beating death of detainee at the hands of
prison guards, individual officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
from liability. A claim that "low-level" county officials falsified
reports after prisoner's death did not show a "well-settled"
county custom of excessive force, but there was a genuine issue of whether
guards participating in beating acted maliciously and sadistically. Gailor
v. Armstrong, 187 F. Supp. 2d 729 (W.D. Ken. 2001). [2002 JB Jun]
Federal appeals court upholds criminal conviction
under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 242 of three corrections officers for depriving a
prisoner of his civil rights in an incident in which two of the officers
allegedly beat him and then the prisoner was prevented for a time from
receiving medical care for his resulting injuries. Trial court did not
abuse its discretion in refusing to grant separate trials for individual
defendants. United States v. Daniels, #00-30624, 281 F.3d 168 (5th Cir.
2002). [N/R]
Jury verdict in favor of officers upheld
in prisoner's lawsuit claiming that they beat him while he was being moved
during a transfer made necessary by a prison riot that occurred five days
before; trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding from evidence
in the case the officers' suspension following the riots. Okal v. Verfuth,
#99-3277, 275 F.3d 606 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB May]
Prisoner who claimed correctional officers
severely beat him was required to exhaust available administrative remedies
before filing suit despite the fact that they could not lead to monetary
awards. Actions including the disciplining of the officers or the transfer
of the prisoner to another facility where he would not be under their supervision
were possible responses to an administrative complaint, and the administrative
exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1997e(a) requires a prisoner to exhaust any procedure that has authority
to take "some action" in response to his complaint. Larkin v.
Galloway, #00-1414, 266 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
In federal civil rights lawsuit claiming
that correctional officers assaulted inmates and family members during
a visit to the jail, any claim for psychiatric conditions requiring medical
treatment was waived by an attorney's letter indicating that such claims
would be withdrawn with prejudice, but the letter did not waive any claims,
on behalf of the family members, for injuries to reputation, humiliation,
or embarrassment arising out of the incident. Under the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997e(e, h), a county jail prisoner who was
in custody at the time of the alleged incident could not recover damages
for emotional distress after his attorney waived any claim he had for physical
injuries. Jessamy v. Ehren, 153 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
A deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity
against liability for the alleged excessive use of force against a prisoner
who was allegedly not resisting at the time, but the sheriff's purported
condoning of the use of the force by failing to immediately terminate the
deputy, occurred after the incident and therefore did not cause the deputy's
conduct, so the sheriff could not, on that basis, be held individually
liable for damages. Morris v. Crawford County, Arkansas, 173 F. Supp. 2d
870 (W.D. Ark. 2001). [N/R]
A verdict for defendant correctional officers
in a prisoner's civil rights lawsuit claiming that the officers used excessive
force against him was not against the great weight of the evidence or a
miscarriage of justice requiring a new trial. The jury could properly reject,
if it decided to do so, expert witness testimony by a forensic pathologist
that the prisoner's wounds were consistent with a beating but not with
a "routine takedown." A jury can reject an expert's opinion even
in the absence of another expert testifying to rebut it. Giles v. Rhodes,
171 F. Supp. 2d 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). [N/R]
Federal trial court rules that prison officers
did not necessarily violate the Eighth Amendment by beating a prisoner
while he was handcuffed and that defendant officers were entitled to qualified
immunity in prisoner's federal civil rights lawsuit. Piedra v. True, 169
F. Supp. 2d 1239 (D. Kan. 2001). [2002 JB Mar]
Prisoner who claimed she was assaulted by
jail personnel during her incarceration could not amend her lawsuit to
seek damages against individual officers when her initial complaint appeared
to name them as defendants only in their official capacity, officer asserted
in his answer that he was being sued in his official capacity, and discovery
in the case had closed. Lopez-Buric v. Notch, 168 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (D.
Minn. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that a corrections officer
intentionally slammed a cell door on a prisoner's hand and then waited
an hour before allowing him to get medical attention for serious injuries
to his hand, (including two cuts, swollen fingers, and loss of power and
feeling in fingers and hand), stated a claim for violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Ducally v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections, 160 F. Supp.
2d 220 (D.R.I. 2001). [N/R]
Prisoner's claim that officers beat him while
extracting him from his cell after he was incapacitated by an electronic
shock stated a claim for violation of his Eighth Amendment rights; officers
were not entitled to qualified immunity, as prisoner's version of the incident,
if true, would violate clearly established law. Skrtich v. Thornton, #00-15959,
267 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Feb]
Force used to restrain inmate at county jail
did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights when prisoner refused to go
to his cell after multiple orders and struck at one official with a pencil
hitting him in the neck and shoulder area between 6-10 times. Pittman v.
Kurtz, No. Civ. A. 99-3181, 165 F. Supp. 2d 1243 (D. Kan. 2001). [N/R]
Officer's alleged slamming of cell port door
on prisoner's hand after prisoner placed it there holding some garbage
was a minimal use of force and did not cause a significant injury. Federal
appeals court rules that it was a response to a legitimate security interest
and was not an excessive use of force. Outlaw v. Newkirk, #98-4252, 259
F. 3d 833 (7th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
Prisoner waived any right to nominal damages
in lawsuit against officer he claimed assaulted him by failing to ask for
them; jury did not act improperly in finding that officer's use of force
was excessive but that prisoner suffered no compensable damage. Oliver
v. Falla, #00-10520, 258 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2001). [2002 JB Jan]
Prisoner's claim that he was assaulted by
officers in retaliation for his participation in a prison disturbance was
subject to the exhaustion of remedies provisions of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act, and was properly dismissed when he failed to pursue administrative
grievance. The purpose of this requirement was not only to block frivolous
lawsuits, but also to permit prison officials to attempt to first address
complaints internally. Smith v. Zachary, #99-4084, 255 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.
2001). [N/R]
299: 171 Alleged beating and use of a stun
device by officers on a prisoner in full restraints who was not offering
physical resistance stated a claim for excessive use of force. Shelton
v. Angelone, 148 F. Supp. 2d 670 (W.D. Va. 2001).
299:172 Federal appeals court overturns dismissal
of prisoner's claim that three officers physically attacked him while he
was handcuffed and that two of them made threats of physical harm against
him in retaliation for his having filed lawsuits. Proctor v. Harmon, No.
00-3583EA, 257 F.3d 867 (8th Cir. 2001).
298:154 Correctional officer was liable for
$1,000 in compensatory damages and $500 in punitive damages for striking
prisoner in the face three times following a verbal argument about proper
sign-in procedures. Romaine v. Rawson, 140 F. Supp. 2d 204 (N.D.N.Y. 2001).
297:138 Trial court did not abuse its discretion
in ordering new trial in case where jury found that some prison guards
used excessive force against prisoner but awarded only $1 in nominal damages
despite evidence of actual injuries; appeals court rules, however, that
issues of liability and damages were "so intertwined" that a
new trial should consider all issues, not just damages, setting aside $300,000
damage award from second trial. Pryer v. Slavic, #00-3297, 251 F.3d 448
(3rd Cir. 2001).
297:137 Federal court overturns $500,000
jury award against county in prisoner's claim of excessive force by jail
detention officers; failure to specifically train officers that they were
prohibited from standing on an detainee's back in an effort to restrain
him did not constitute a "glaring" omission showing that county
was deliberately indifferent; size of verdict also found excessive. Lewis
v. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners, 140 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (D. Kan.
2001).
296:121 Deputy's alleged action of choking
a pre- trial detainee without justification was sufficient to state a claim
for excessive use of force even if no "significant injury" was
suffered. Watford v. Bruce, 126 F. Supp. 2d 425 (E.D.Va. 2001).
296:115 Under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act, prisoners must exhaust available administrative remedies before filing
a lawsuit, even when they are seeking only money damages and money damages
may not be obtained through the administrative grievance process. Booth
v. Churner, #99-1964, 121 S. Ct. 1819 (2001).
295:104 New York prisoner awarded $10,000
on claim that correctional officer struck him twice in the face without
provocation; further proceedings to follow on prisoner's claim that there
was a city policy of toleration of officer abuse of prisoners. Hemric v.
City of New York, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1196 (S.D.N.Y.).
296:121 Prisoner adequately exhausted administrative
remedies on his excessive force claim against officers when he attempted
to file his grievance, but it was not processed; the merits of his claim
were later examined and rejected by the highest official in the state corrections
department. Camp v. Brennan, No. 99-3887, 219 F.3d 279 (3rd Cir. 2000).
294:87 Prisoner awarded a total of $83,250
in lawsuit asserting excessive use of force by correctional officer was
not entitled to $30,550.90 in attorneys' fees; such fees must be recalculated,
based on cap on hourly fees in Prison Litigation Reform Act after federal
appeals court rejects trial court's ruling that the cap violated prisoner's
right to equal protection. Wolff v. Moore, No. 00-3959, 00- 3995, 2000
U.S. App. LEXIS 28054 (6th Cir.).
292:59 UPDATE: U.S. Supreme Court to decide
whether prisoner who claimed that correctional officers used excessive
force against him was required to exhaust available administrative remedies
before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit for damages, even if money
damages could not be awarded in the administrative proceeding. Booth v.
Churner, Co., #97-7487 & 97-7488, 206 F.3d 289 (3rd Cir.), reported
in Jail & Prisoner Law Bulletin, No. 287, p. 168 (Nov. 2000), cert.
granted, No. 00-289, 121 S. Ct. 377 (2000).
291:41 After jury returned a verdict in favor
of correctional officers sued by a prisoner who claimed they beat him,
trial judge grants prisoner a new trial based on repeated "prejudicial"
remarks during trial referring to him as an "inmate" and pointing
to his confinement in "maximum security," which implied that
he was dangerous. Hillard v. Hargraves, 197 F.R.D. 358 (N.D. Ill. 2000).
291:41 Prisoners must face "actual,
imminent danger of serious injury" in order to claim self-defense
in resisting the use of force by a correctional officer in the state of
Washington; assertion of "apparent" imminent danger is insufficient,
court rules. State v. Bradley, #68320-4, 10 P.3d 358 (Wash. 2000).
292:60 N.Y. prisoners could not pursue federal
civil rights claim over alleged "conspiracy" of failure to protect
them from assault by officers or inmates in 13
different prisons over a ten year period
when the incidents were unrelated and no "conspiracy" was shown.
Webb v. Goord, 197 F.R.D. 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
294:90 Federal trial court grants a new trial
in prisoner's lawsuit alleging that officer kicked him several times in
the mouth, breaking his teeth, as he lay in restraints on the floor; court
rules that no reasonable jury could conclude that prisoner's rights were
not violated. Ruffin v. Fuller, 125 F. Supp. 2d 105 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
289:10 Federal appeals court rules that provision
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act requiring the exhaustion of administrative
remedies before pursuing a federal civil rights lawsuit does not apply
to a prisoner's claim that correctional officers physically assaulted him
without any lawful justification. Nussle v. Willette, No. 99-0387, 224
F.3d 95 (2nd Cir. 2000).
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).
285:138 Trial court improperly granted summary
judgment in favor of three correctional officers on prisoner's claim that
they beat him as he was ending a telephone call and continued to assault
him after he was restrained; no particular level of injury was necessarily
required to show the excessive use of force, and trial court's conclusion
that the force used was not excessive because the prisoner's injuries were
minimal is reversed on appeal. Brooks v. Kyler, No. 98-7626, 204 F.3d 102
(3rd Cir. 2000).
286:156 Police officer acted reasonably in
opening cell door to quiet yelling arrestee and make sure that intoxicated
arrestee was not harming himself; no liability for injuries to arrestee
who was knocked unconscious by cell door opening; officer was unable to
see that arrestee was standing behind cell door and would be hit by it.
Wilson v. Spain, No. 99-2224, 209 F.3d 713 (8th Cir. 2000).
287:168 Prisoner who claimed that correctional
officers used excessive force against him was required to exhaust available
administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit for
damages, even if money damages could not be awarded in the administrative
proceeding. Booth v. Churner, Co., #97-7487 & 97-7488, 206 F.3d 289
(3rd Cir. 2000).
[N/R] Factual dispute over what took place
after detainee was handcuffed and whether prison guards maliciously used
force against him precluded summary judgment for officers on excessive
force claim. Griffin v. Crippen, No. 98-3704, 193 F.3d 89 (2nd Cir. 1999).
285:131 Former correctional officer, now
on active military duty, was entitled to a stay in prisoner's federal civil
rights lawsuit against him for alleged assault; federal statute allows
a stay of any civil lawsuit during a plaintiff or defendant's military
service and for up to sixty days thereafter. White v. Black, #98-21058,
190 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 1999).
285:136 Federal appeals court upholds jury
award totaling $83,250 against a correctional officer who broke a prisoner's
nose while beating him in his cell and against fellow officer who was "deliberately
indifferent" to prisoner's safety. Wolff v. Moore, No. 96-4080, 199
F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 1999).
281:72 N.Y. prisoner could not pursue his
federal
civil rights lawsuit claiming that officers
assaulted him and that his medical records were altered as part of a coverup
of the use of excessive force against him when a state court previously
ruled, in his state law claim over the same incident that no excessive
force was used and no "coverup" existed. D'Andrea v. Hulton,
81 F. Supp. 2d 440 (W.D.N.Y. 1999).
281:72 Failure to prevent attack on prisoner
by another inmate who scaled two nine-foot fences to get to him and cut
him with a razor blade could not be the basis for city liability when testimony
showed that this had never happened before and that placing rival groups
of prisoners in two exercise cages was contrary to ordinary prison practice.
Echevarria v. Dept. of Correctional Services of NYC, 48 F. Supp. 2d 388
(S.D.N.Y. 1999).
EDITOR'S NOTE: See also Snell v. DeMello,
44 F. Supp. 2d 386 (D. Mass. 1999), holding that supervisory liability
for prison employees' failure to prevent an assault on one inmate by another
can only be based on "deliberate indifference" to a substantial
risk of harm that the supervisor knew of or should have known of. Mere
negligence by a supervisor in failure to prevent such an attack is not
enough for federal civil rights liability.
283:107 Prisoner's lawsuit alleging that
he was assaulted by a corrections officer constituted a claim concerning
"prison conditions," requiring him to exhaust available administrative
remedies before filing; since he did not do so, the suit was properly dismissed.
Freeman v. Francis, #98-4288, 196 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1999).
274:152 Federal appeals court rules that
prisoner could not successfully appeal jury award in favor of officer who
allegedly beat him based on statements by defendant's attorney implying
that he should not be awarded damages because he was a "cop killer,"
based on failure of prisoner's attorney to object at trial. Wilson v. Williams,
#97-2637, 182 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. en banc. 1999).
274:153 Texas prisoner stated claim for Eighth
Amendment excessive use of force by correctional officers; civil rights
claim for excessive force must involve more than extremely minor physical
injury, but need not involve "significant" or serious injury.
Gomez v. Chandler, #97- 41455, 163 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 1999). 268:56 Jury
awards over $2 million to convicted child rapist/murderer who allegedly
was beaten and kicked by correctional officers while handcuffed after they
subdued him following violent escape attempt in which he stabbed and beat
female correctional officer, leaving her bleeding and stripped of her uniform
in his cell. King v. Connecticut Dept. of Corrections, U.S. Dist. Ct. Connecticut,
February 4, 1999, reported in The Connecticut Law Tribune, Feb. 15, 1999
and March 1, 1999.
268:57 $500,000 settlement reached in lawsuit
alleging that mentally retarded jail prisoner was beaten by correctional
officer with a metal frying pan or pot. Donovan v. Nassau Co., U.S. Dist.
Ct. (S.D.N.Y. March 1, 1999), reported in The New York Times, National
Edition, page A19 (March 2, 1999) and page A21 (March 3, 1999).
265:9 Prisoner awarded $37,500 in lawsuit
claiming that he was harassed and beaten by correctional officer; prisoner's
prior shooting of officer was the reason he was serving his sentence; jury
finds that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to prisoner's
safety after he complained of officer's actions. DePina v. Monteiro, U.S.
Dist. Ct., Boston, Mass., October 15, 1998, reported in Chicago Tribune,
p. 9 (October 16, 1998).
266:23 Correctional officer's action of throwing
water at prisoner in restraints after he had previously thrown a cup of
urine at her was not cruel and unusual punishment. Samuels v. Hawkins,
#96-3539, 157 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 1998).
268:58 Verbal threat by correctional officer
to have prisoner killed could be sufficient, under certain circumstances,
to state a claim for excessive use of force. Chandler v. D.C. Dept. of
Corrections, #96-5166, 145 F.3d 1355 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
269:74 Introduction of evidence that plaintiff
prisoner had been convicted of murdering a police officer was not improper
in federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that correctional officer attacked
him; plaintiff, in fact, waived objection by himself introducing precisely
the evidence he sought to exclude and by his attorney repeatedly referring
to him as a "cop killer." Wilson v. Williams, #97-2637, 161 F.3d
1078 (7th Cir. 1998).
272:121 Prisoner's claim that guard threw
a bar of soap at him, even if true, did not state a claim for an Eighth
Amendment violation when prisoner did not state that he suffered any harm
or was even hit by the soap; guard's alleged verbal abuse was likewise
insufficient to state a constitutional claim. Green v. Thoryk, 30 F.Supp.2d
862 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
[N/R] No evidence existed that correctional
officer's actions in removing the plaintiff prisoner from a cell resulted
in his complained of injuries which required medical treatment. Harksen
v. Garratt, 29 F.Supp.2d 272 (E.D. Va. 1998).
259:107 Co. agrees to pay $750,000 in damages
plus $40,000 in medical expenses to intoxicated arrestee who fell on his
face after correctional officer administered forceful "hip check"
and allegedly dragged prisoner over the floor by pulling on his handcuffed
hands. Deising v. Board of Comm'rs, Mich., St. Clair Co. Cir. Ct., No.
97-001727-NO, July 1, 1997, reported in 41 ATLA Law Rptr. 9 (Feb. 1998).
260:120 Officers not liable for force used
to subdue prisoner who had just attacked, choked, sexually assaulted, and
injured female prison psychologist; jury instructions requiring a showing
of malicious and sadistic application of force before imposing liability
were correct. Parkus v. Delo, 135 F.3d 1232 (8th Cir. 1998).
260:121 Officers did not use excessive force
in subduing prisoner who was allegedly a "ringleader" in ongoing
prison disturbance during which prisoners set fires and overflowed toilets;
prisoner threatened to stab officer and was continuing to urge others to
set fires; minimal injuries suffered by prisoner did not give rise to liability
when they were inflicted in the course of quelling disturbance rather than
maliciously. Stanley v. Hejirika, 134 F.3d 629 (4th Cir. 1998).
261:136 Lawsuit alleging that correctional
officers themselves assaulted prisoner was not a lawsuit over "prison
conditions" requiring the exhaustion of available administrative remedies
under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, as lawsuit alleging officers failed
to protect prisoner from assault by other inmates would have been. Rodriguez
v. Berbary, 992 F.Supp. 592 (W.D.N.Y. 1998).
253:10 Sore and bruised ear inmate had after
incident with correctional officer was too minor an injury to be the basis
for an excessive force claim; prisoner's claim also failed requirement,
under Prison Litigation Reform Act, that he show a "physical injury"
to support any claim for emotional or mental suffering. Siglar v. Hightower,
112 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 1997).
254:24 Inmate assaulted by officer while
four other officers held him awarded $10,000 in compensatory damages and
$10,000 in punitive damages; officers' failure to intervene violated clearly
established law; prison superintendent liable based on knowledge of officer's
violent propensities and prior failure to order investigations. Davis,
Estate of, by Ostenfeld v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388 (8th Cir. 1997).
257:74 Correctional officer's alleged actions
of slapping a prisoner twice in the face and calling him a "nigger"
could not form the basis of a federal civil rights lawsuit when the prisoner
suffered no physical injury and the officer's actions came after the prisoner
interfered with and harassed the officer. Brown v. Croce, 967 F.Supp. 101
(S.D.N.Y. 1997).
258:90 Information concerning correctional
official's prior arrest for assault was discoverable in former prisoner's
excessive force lawsuit against him, despite dismissal of criminal charge.
Cox v. McClellan, 174 F.R.D. 32 (W.D.N.Y. 1997).
261:139 Officers used only necessary force
in restraining prisoner who lit a fire in his cell and charged at them
when they attempted to enter cell. Colon v. Mack, 983 F.Supp. 494 (S.D.N.Y.
1997). » Editor's Note: The trial judge in the above case entered
judgment as a matter of law after the jury also returned a verdict for
the defendant officers. The court believed that this was necessary because
it erroneously gave instructions to the jury that might have given them
the impression that the prisoner had to show, in order to recover damages,
that he was a citizen of the U.S. The federal civil rights statute in question
actually allows recovery by "any citizen of the United States or other
person within the jurisdiction thereof." Colon v. Mack, 983 F.Supp.
496 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).
246:88 Jury could conclude that, while officer
used excessive force, this use of force did not cause prisoner's injuries;
award of $1 in nominal damages against officer who used excessive force
upheld. Haywood v. Koehler, 78 F.3d 101 (2nd Cir. 1996).
248:121 Injuries to officers and testimony
of witnesses showed that, rather than beating prisoner for no reason, officers
were themselves attacked by him and force used to restrain him was reasonable;
inmate's claim that officers were retaliating against him because of his
plans to file a lawsuit were not credible when he himself admitted that
he had not told any of them his plans. Duamutef v. Fial, 922 F.Supp. 807
(W.D.N.Y. 1996).
249:138 Prisoner was entitled to a new trial
in lawsuit alleging that officers assaulted him when case was tried to
the same jury that minutes before had returned a verdict against him on
unrelated lawsuit concerning officers at another facility who allegedly
stood by while inmates attacked him. Johnson v. Schmidt, 83 F.3d 37 (2nd
Cir. 1996).
250:154 Federal appeals court reinstates
$500 punitive damage award against officer who allegedly hit restrained
prisoner in the face and taunted him with racial slurs while he and other
officers forced him to comply with prison's haircut rule; haircut rule
did not violate religious freedom rights of Rastafarian prisoner. Harris
v. Chapman, 97 F.3d 499 (11th Cir. 1996).
[N/R] Material issue of fact existed as to
whether guards used excessive force when transferring pretrial detainee
from one cell to another. Dorsey v. St. Joseph Co. Jail Officials, 98 F.3d
1527 (7th Cir. 1996.)
232:53 Prisoner allegedly injured by stray
bird shot when correctional officer intentionally fired shotgun at another
inmate can sue firing officer and two other officers who were present,
despite officer's lack of specific intent to injure him; correctional officers
not entitled to qualified immunity. Robins v. Meecham, 60 F.3d 1436 (9th
Cir. 1995).
233:72 Jury award of a total of $115,000
against correctional officers who allegedly assaulted prisoner and placed
him naked in feces smeared cell upheld by federal appeals court; jury's
erroneous award of punitive damages against three officers it found not
liable did not invalidate the remainder of the jury's verdict. Blissett
v. Coughlin, 66 F.3d 531 (2nd Cir. 1995).
233:73 Officer was not liable for use of
excessive force against prisoner when he "maliciously" attempted
to kick prisoner in the head after prisoner spit on him, since his kick
missed prisoner's head, resulting in no injury. Warren v. Humphrey, 875
F.Supp. 378 (E.D. Tex. 1995).
235:103 Jury awards prisoner $1,250 against
two correctional officers he alleged used excessive force against him,
but awards him nothing in second altercation involving five other officers;
officer kicked in the testicles by prisoner in second incident awarded
$1,500 in damages against him. Hynes v. LaBoy, 887 F.Supp. 618 (S.D.N.Y.
1995).
236:122 Jury awards $1.18 million to intoxicated
arrestee who was allegedly kicked by correctional officers at county jail,
shackled to bench, and denied use of a toilet while in custody. Sosa v.
Jefferson Co., C-95-229 (W.D.Ky., March 1, 1996), reported in The National
Law Journal p. A13 (April 1, 1996).
[N/R] Trial court's instructions on good
faith use of force on prisoner were adequate. Douglas v. Owens, 50 F.3d
1226 (3rd Cir. 1995).
[N/R] Jury instructions given by trial court
on inmate's claim of excessive use of force by officers were proper. Palmer
v. Lares, 42 F.3d 975 (5th Cir. 1995).
217:9 Ohio department of corrections vicariously
liable for $2,000 for officer's alleged striking of inmate in the face
without provocation or justification. Elliott v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. &
Corr., 92 Ohio App. 3d 772, 637 N.E.2d 106 (1994).
217:9 Evidence that inmate spat in officer's
face before officer struck him as he raised his hands above his head as
though to strike the officer was properly admitted as evidence to support
the claim that the officer felt threatened; three of inmate's prior six
convictions were properly admitted into evidence to impeach his testimony.
Wilson v. Groaning, 25 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 1994).
220:54 Officer's striking of a prisoner solely
to harm him rather than for any legitimate penological reason violated
the prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights; prisoner was entitled to judgment
in federal civil rights suit despite suffering only pain and not permanent
injury. McLaurin v. Prater, 30 F.3d 982 (8th Cir. 1994).
220:55 Jury verdict for defendant correctional
officers in suit by prisoner overturned; trial judge's revealing plaintiff
prisoner's prior sexual offense convictions to prospective jurors was an
abuse of discretion. Scott v. Lawrence, 36 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 1994).
221:71 Federal appeals court rules that jury
instructions in prisoner's excessive force claim against correctional officer
should have required finding that the officer acted both maliciously and
sadistically before awarding damages for an Eighth Amendment violation;
failure to include the words "and sadistically" in jury instructions
required reversal of award to plaintiff prisoner and the holding of a new
trial. Howard v. Barnett, 21 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 1994).
225:136 Unprovoked spontaneous alleged assault
on prisoner by officers constituted punishment for purposes of stating
an Eighth Amendment claim. Pelfrey v. Chambers, 43 F.3d 1034 (6th Cir.
1995).
227:169 Correctional officers were not entitled
to qualified immunity on claim that they kept prisoner in cell deprived
of clothing for twenty-two hours, before and after they allegedly used
excessive force against him; deprivation of clothing was part of "continuous
course of conduct," and jury issue was whether officers' acted for
reasonable security reasons or "maliciously and sadistically for the
very purpose of causing harm." Wilkins v. Moore, 40 F.3d 954 (8th
Cir. 1994).
227:170 Jury instructions on excessive force
which did not include the word "sadistically" did not constitute
plain error requiring reversal of jury award against five correctional
officers. Baker v. Delo, 38 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 1994).
[N/R] Appeals court orders award of nominal
damages in case where jury found that officer used excessive force against
inmate but did not award any damages. Gibeau v. Nellis, 18 F.3d 107 (2nd
Cir. 1994).
If deputy swung keys on brass ring at inmate's
face only in response to his smoking, and subsequently hit inmate's hand,
he used excessive force; appeals court orders further proceedings to decide
genuine issue of material fact as to whether inmate was causing a disturbance
at the time of the incident in question. Norman v. Taylor, 9 F.3d 1078
(4th Cir. 1993).
Prisoner who claimed two guards assaulted
him in an office while two other prison officials watched did not provide
any evidence to refute affidavits showing that force used was necessary
to restrain him while he was being unruly; trial court grants summary judgment
to defendants in prisoner's civil rights lawsuit. Harrison v. Johnson,
830 F.Supp. 866 (E.D.N.C. 1993).
Jury award to inmate for alleged excessive
force by two officers overturned by appeals court because jury instructions
failed to require before liability that jury find that officers acted "maliciously
and sadistically for the very purpose of inflicting harm." Cummings
v. Malone, 995 F.2d 817 (8th Cir. 1993).
Prisoner's complaint that excessive force
to subdue him after disturbance was neither irrational nor wholly incredible
and therefore should not have been dismissed as frivolous. Johnson v. Bi-State
Justice Center, 12 F.3d 133 (8th Cir. 1993).
Factual issues as to whether correctional
officer used force in good faith effort to maintain order or sadistically
to cause harm precluded summary judgment for defendant officer on basis
of qualified immunity. Hill v. Shelander, 992 F.2d 714 (7th Cir. 1993).
Summary judgment should not have been granted
in suit alleging assault of prisoner by officers when there were unresolved
factual issues as to whether prison disturbance was still in progress at
time of the alleged assault. Moore v. Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697 (6th Cir. 1993).
Inmate allegedly beaten by two state troopers
after he yelled racial epithet at one of them during a drug raid on a prison
receives $66,300 in settlement of excessive force suit. Starling v. Co.
of Lehigh, U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D. Pa., No. CV-92-1229, Apr. 5, 1994, 37 ATLA
L. Rep. 218 (Aug. 1994).
Detainee who claimed he was beaten by deputy
sheriffs at jail to coerce his confession to killing off-duty deputy was
barred from bringing excessive force civil rights claim; issue of whether
detainee was beaten was previously decided by trial court in criminal proceeding
which declined to suppress confession on grounds of coercion and could
not be relitigated. Gray v. Farley, 13 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 1993). Correctional
employee was not entitled to qualified immunity in prisoner's suit against
him for failing to intervene in alleged attack on prisoner by officer who
transported inmate from jail to correctional institution; appeals court
rules that "deliberate indifference" was the proper standard
for judging liability, rather than requiring that plaintiff show that employee
acted "maliciously and sadistically." Buckner v. Hollins, 983
F.2d 119 (8th Cir. 1993).
Appeals court upholds order for new trial
on both liability and damages in case where prisoner claimed guard hit
him in the mouth while he was being held down, requiring extraction of
four of his teeth, where injury found liability, but awarded no damages.
Thomas v. Stalter, 20 F.3d 298 (7th Cir. 1994).
Correctional officer who threw handcuffed
prisoner down fire escape stairs while participating in evacuating prisoners
from dorm following riot liable for $10,000 in compensatory and $25,000
in punitive damages for excessive use of force. Davis v. Moss, 841 F.Supp.
1193 (M.D. Ga. 1994).
Trial court abused its discretion in dismissing
prisoner's lawsuit as frivolous without considering the issue of whether
the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment covers
purely psychological injury; appeals court reinstates for further proceedings
inmate's suit over officer's alleged threat to cut him with a knife. Smith
v. Aldingers, 999 F.2d 109 (5th Cir. 1993).
Sheriff could not be held liable for officer's
alleged use of excessive force against a prisoner when he did not personally
participate in the incident, and there was not evidence showing that he
approved or encouraged the officers' actions, failed to provide adequate
training, or failed to conduct an investigation of what occurred. O'Banion
v. Bowman, 824 F.Supp. 743 (S.D. Ohio 1993).
Even if prisoner's claim that officers "shoved
him around" and verbally taunted him after a forced shower were true,
it did not constitute excessive use of force in violation of the Eighth
Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Risdal v. Martin,
810 F.Supp. 1049 (S.D. Iowa 1993).
Prisoner beaten by several officers in his
cell awarded $15,000 in damages; his provocation of the officers, including
throwing human waste at them, mitigated against an award of punitive damages.
Green v. Johnson, 977 F.2d 1383 (10th cir. 1992).
Prisoner allegedly beaten without provocation
awarded damages against three officers who hit him and $20,000 in damages
against officer who forced him to walk a long distance from prison infirmary
to his cell despite his heart condition and severe chest pains. Giroux
v. Sherman, 807 F.Supp. 1182 (E.D. Pa. 1992).
Correctional officer who choked prisoner
until he was unconscious and then struck him while he was handcuffed and
on his knees liable for $2,500 in damages and $27,600 in attorneys' fees;
U.S. Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit abandons "shocks the conscience"
standard for pretrial detainee excessive force cases. Valencia v. Wiggins,
981 F.2d 1440 (5th Cir. 1993).
Correctional officers were properly granted
in summary judgment in prisoner's suit alleging that they beat him and
made racial remarks; officers' uncontested affidavits indicated that they
entered his cell to compel him to comply with orders to change clothes
for his upcoming transfer and medical records showed no "cognizable
injuries." Williams v. Browman, 981 F.2d 901 (6th Cir. 1992). Prisoner
could not recover damages from jail guard who allegedly struck him while
trying to prevent him from cutting his wrist in a suicide attempt. Martin
v. Harrison Co. Jail, 975 F.2d 192 (5th Cir. 1992).
Prisoner who claimed that deputy sheriffs
assaulted him could not sue county prosecutors for ignoring his requests
to bring criminal charges against the deputies. Rial v. Burmila, 782 F.Supp.
1291 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
Update: Federal judge vacates jury award
of $758,000 for alleged beatings and solitary confinement for seven year
period of Illinois prisoner; new trial ordered. Ortiz v. Fairman, No. 88-C-7509
(N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 1993), reported in the Chicago Tribune Section 2, p.
2 (Dec. 30, 1993).
Inmate awarded $28,000 in damages and $2,406
in attorneys' fees for beating by three correctional officers intended
to deter him from filing administrative complaints in the future. Flowers
v. Phelps, 956 F.2d 488 (5th Cir. 1992).
Officer used necessary, non-excessive force
to restrain inmate refusing to release items he seized from table in violation
of officer's orders; use of force upheld even if inmate's claim that officer
grabbed his scrotum were true. Garzee v. Barkley, 828 P.2d 334 (Idaho App.
1992).
Three officers liable for a total of $7,000
for use of excessive force against prisoner who stabbed one of them with
a homemade knife and was subsequently convicted of attempted murder of
the officer; prisoner alleged he was repeatedly stabbed, beaten and kicked
after he had been disarmed and subdued. Bogan v. Stroud, 958 F.2d 180 (7th
Cir. 1992).
Illinois prisoner awarded $758,800 for alleged
beatings and solitary confinement for seven year period. Ortiz v. Meyer,
No. 88-C-7509 (N.D. Ill. 1992), reported in Chicago Daily Law Bulletin,
p. 1 (April 8, 1992).
Prisoner struck in the groin area by correctional
officer awarded $500 for pain and suffering and $250 for "humiliation".
Neal v. Miller, 778 F.Supp. 378 (W.D. Mich. 1991).
Officers were not entitled to qualified immunity
for alleged unprovoked use of force against prisoner in 1985. Felix v.
McCarthy, 939 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1991).
Jail inmate awarded $2,500 for his beating
by officers in the presence of the sheriff; inmate's "loud" talking
was no justification for beating him. McNeal v. Owens, 769 F.Supp. 270
(W.D. Tenn. 1991).
U.S. Supreme Court rules that "significant
injury" is not a requirement for proving use of excessive physical
force against a prisoner in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v.
McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992).
Federal appeals court, requiring "significant
injury" for liability for alleged excessive force by officers, finds
that evidence that inmate suffered "extensive bruising" and small
lacerations met that requirement. Luciano v. Galindo, 944 F.2d 261 (5th
Cir. 1991).
Former jail inmate awarded $42,000 by jury
on his claim that deputy sheriff attacked him for no reason after his incarceration
for public drunkenness; sheriff found not liable. Rhoads v. Pope, U.S.
Dist. Ct., Norfolk, Va., reported in The Ledger-Star, Norfolk, Va., p.
D2 (July 10, 1991).
Prison officers were not entitled to qualified
immunity for dropping inmate, head first, from the back of pickup truck
while his hands were shackled behind his back; evidence was sufficient
to justify award of punitive damages of $3,500 and attorneys' fees of $62,643.20.
Davis v. Locke, 936 F.2d 1208 (11th Cir. 1991).
Detainee who suffered a cut wrist and bruises
when he resisted officers efforts to put him in a cell with another prisoner
did not have a claim for excessive use of force; inmate did, however, state
claim for officers' alleged deliberate indifference to his personal safety
by attempting to put him in a cell with a prisoner with violent propensities.
White v. Roper, 901 F.2d 1501 (9th Cir. 1990).
Daughter of detainee who died in jail after
deputies used choke hold on him to receive at least $1.9 million in settlement
of suit. Varela v. Co. of San Diego, reported in San Diego Union, p. B-1
(July 11, 1991).
Prisoner awarded $172,500 in damages against
officer videotaped forcing him to the ground. Casse v. Cross, U.S. Dist.
Ct. Santa Ana, Cal., reported in the Orange Co. Register, May 22, 1991.
Inmate awarded $1,250 in damages and $8,896
in attorneys' fees in suit against correctional officers who pushed him
against shower wall with a plexiglass riot shield following his refusal
to give them his coat; federal appeals court upholds award. Burgin v. Iowa
Dept. of Corrections, 923 F.2d 637 (8th Cir. 1991).
Prisoner's verbal provocation alone would
not have justified officer's response of striking inmate with baton; summary
judgment for defendant officer was improper. Miller v. Leathers, 913 F.2d
1085 (4th Cir. 1990).
Correctional officers' use of force to remove
inmate from regular cell to isolation cell was justified when inmate refused
three times to uncover his head while sleeping. Stenzel v. Ellis, 916 F.2d
423 (8th Cir. 1990).
Inmates beaten by officers after they passively
resisted transfer awarded $29,000 compensatory and $743,000 punitive damages.
Covington v. District of Columbia, U.S. District Ct., D.C., No. 87-2658,
Sept. 10, 1990, reported in 34 ATLA L. Rep. 10 (Feb. 1991).
Prison employee liable for $1,000 to inmate
after sticking the barrel of his revolver in the inmate's mouth and cocking
the trigger because inmate had spread rumors he was having a sexual affair
with the employee's wife. Oses v. Fair, 739 F.Supp. 707 (D. Mass. 1990).
Allegation that prison guard smashed prisoner's
fingers in small opening on cell door, requiring stitches in two fingers,
stated claim for use of excessive force. Adams v. Hansen, 906 F.2d 192
(5th cir. 1990).
Jury awards $3.3 million to pre-trial female
detainee chained to wall who suffered aggravation of asthma condition;
settlement for unstated amount. Murphy v. City of Hamstramck, Mich., Wayne
county Circuit Court, No. 85-503217CZ, Feb. 8, 1990, 33 ATLA L. Rep. 289
(Sept. 1990).
Prisoner's assertion that officer deliberately
kicked the door to the food slot of his cell, cutting off the tip of his
finger, could not be countered by hearsay witnesses and unauthenticated
records. Gilbert v. Collins, 905 F.2d 61 (5th Cir. 1990).
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals adopts new
standard on Eighth Amendment excessive force claims; significant injury,
unreasonableness and excessiveness of force insufficient to show violation
in absence of wanton infliction of pain. Huguet v. Barnett, 900 F.2d 838
(5th Cir. 1990).
Prisoner who suffered only bruises could
not bring claim for unconstitutional use of excessive force by guards.
Wise v. Carlson, 902 F.2d 417 (5th Cir. 1990).
Federal appeals court upholds damage award
to prisoner assaulted by correctional officers; severe injury not required
for violation of civil rights. McHenry v. Chadwick, 896 F.2d 184 (6th Cir.
1990).
Officer's striking of inmate three times
with his baton did not violate eighth amendment. Miller v. Leathers, 885
F.2d 151 (4th Cir. 1989).
Appeals court upholds $241,000 damage award
to prisoners beaten by guards after prison riot; evidence sufficient to
impose liability on prison supervisors. Bolin v. Black, 875 F.2d 1343 (8th
Cir. 1989).
Warden could not be held liable for alleged
beating of inmate by officers, absent any claim that he was personally
involved. Engles v. Hopkins, 709 F.Supp. 495 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
City settles lawsuit over alleged rape of
female inmate by officer for $7,500; plaintiff had asked $1 million. Lemon
v. City of Caruthersville, Federal district court, Missouri, reported in
Missouri Herald, Hayti, Missouri, June 16, 1989.
Officers did not use excessive force in pushing
inmate against bars to handcuff him for purposes of transport within prison.
Anderson v. Sullivan, 702 F.Supp. 424 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).
Officer entitled to qualified immunity for
using deadly force in attempt to prevent escape of prisoner who was murderer.
Henry v. Perry, 866 F.2d 657 (3rd Cir. 1989).
Prisoner in Maryland must exhaust administrative
grievance procedures before bringing state law action for alleged assault
by officer. McCullough v. Wittner, 552 A.2d 881 (Md. 1989).
Federal appeals court tells inmate: "no
pain, no gain"; no recovery for "cruel and unusual punishment"
absent suffering of pain, misery, anguish. Cowans v. Wyrick, 862 F.2d 697
(8th Cir. 1988).
Single act of beating by officer was insufficient
to impose liability on city; officer held liable. Lowe v. City of St. Louis,
843 F.2d 1158 (8th Cir. 1988).
Inmate's failure to prove "severe injury"
in assault by guards sufficient to uphold jury verdict for defendants when
inmate himself proposed instruction including "severe injury"
as required. Williams v. Boles, 841 F.2d 181 (7th Cir. 1988).
U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in case
where government and official were liable; failure to intervene and investigate
deputies' assault on inmate sufficient for section 1983 liability. Co.
of Wayne v. Marchese, 107 S.Ct. 1369 (1987).
Excessive force complaint was frivolous in
case in which no severe injuries were shown. James v. Alfred, 832 F.2d
339 (5th Cir. 1987).
Plaintiff's civil rights lawsuit will be
dismissed if he continues to fail to respond to defendant's interrogatories;
he will be given one more chance to comply because of pro se status. Riviera
v. Simmons, 116 F.R.D. 593 (S.D. N.Y. 1987).
Co. must provide legal representation to
guards accused of assaulting prisoner. Giordano v. O'Neill, 517 N.Y.S.2d
41 (A.D. 1987).
Court dismisses inmate's complaint that he
was beaten by sheriff and prosecutor. Barnes v. Smith, 654 F.Supp. 1244
(E.D. Mo. 1987).
Force used to return inmate to cell was appropriate.
Brown v. Smith, 813 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir. 1987).
Case ordered to proceed against guards for
shooting inmate; federal and state claims must be instructed to the jury
separately. Davis v. Lane, 814 F.2d 397 (7th Cir. 1987).
Court allows suit to continue for injuries
to inmate bystanders when fellow inmates were sprayed with tear gas; suit
alleges canisters instead of "pepper fogger" would have localized
the spray. Holloway v. Lockhart, 813 F.2d 874 (8th Cir. 1987).
Making threats to inmates if they exercise
constitutional rights no basis for federal suit; inmate's suit dismissed.
Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1987).
Exposing inmates to tear gas in subduing
violent inmate not cruel and unusual punishment; no eighth amendment violation.
Collins v. Ward, 652 F.Supp. 500 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
Court properly admits photograph of fatally
stabbed guard in inmates' civil rights suit; error in closing argument
not grounds for reversal when substantial evidence existed. Tyler v. white,
811 F.2d 1204 (8th Cir. 1987).
Intentional assault goes beyond negligent
concepts set forth in Davidson-Daniels cases; section 1983 liability found.
Burris v. Kirkpatrick, 649 F.Supp. 740 (N.D. Ind. 1986).
Step-father and siblings have no constitutionally
protected liberty interest in companionship of inmate allegedly beaten
to death by guards; section 1983 suit dismissed. Ortiz v. Burgos, 807 F.2d
6 (1st Cir. 1986).
Corrections officer who wrapped inmate's
face in bandages, causing death, indicted in federal court for civil rights
violation. United States v. Dale, (W.D.N.C. 1986).
Prison guard sued for brutality during strip
search. Information obtained from the Philadelphia, Pa., Inquirer, 11/19/86.
Prison guards liable for $195,000 for beating
inmate who died following testicle injuries; jury verdict of $150,000 against
director doesn't stand. Rascon v. Hardiman, 803 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1986).
Service of process by prisoners valid; guards
liable by default for refusing to answer complaint. Benny v. Pipes, 799
F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1986).
Guard liable for shooting inmate in trying
to end disturbance. McCullough v. Cady, 640 F.Supp. 1012 (E.D. Mich. 1986).
Verdict upheld against guards for beating
detainee thought to have mental problems; administrators not liable. Information
obtained from the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, 9/29/86; Rascon v. Hardiman,
No. 85-1589.
Guard liable for harassing paraplegic prisoners.
Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d 600 (6th Cir. 1986).
Stun guns outlawed. Schindler v. Beard, U.S.
District Court, Baltimore, Md. The information was obtained from the Annapolis
Capital Newspaper, Md., 7/21/86.
Threats of bodily harm constitute civil action.
Gaut v. Sunn, 792 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1986).
Damages awarded against guards for beating
inmate after he complained of homosexual advances. Wilson v. Lambert, 789
F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1986).
Mock execution and brutality results in liability
verdict. Leach v. Ross, U.S. District Court, D.D.C., No. 84-2416, 11/18/85.
Also see 29 ATLA L. Rep. 225, June 1986.
Striking inmate with lead glove states federal
claim, despite no permanent injuries. Velleff v. Cantwell, 630 F.Supp.
346 (N.D. Ill. 1986).
Case against prison officials for prisoner
assault reversed in light of U.S. Supreme Court cases. Johnston v. Lucas,
786 F.2d 1254 (5th Cir. 1986).
Verbal threats constitute section 1983 claim.
Burton v. Livingston, 791 F.2d 97 (8th Cir. 1986).
Prisoner says sergeants beat him with flashlights
and nightsticks. Hawkins v. Poole, 779 F.2d 1267 (7th Cir. 1985).
Prison official's "jabbing" inmate
with object not actionable. Hudson v. Johnson, 619 F.Supp. 1539 (D.C. Mich.
1985).
Settlement for chokehold death; police department
upholds use of taser gun. Guevara v. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Times,
4/3/86.
Court upholds "stretch hold" position.
Owens v. city of Atlanta, 780 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir. 1986).
Guard's threat to kill warden did not influence
warden's testimony against inmate. West v. Love, 776 F.2d 170 (7th Cir.
1985).
Sua Sponte dismissals before service of process
not favored. Bonfiglio v. Hodden, 770 F.2d 301 (2nd Cir. 1985).
Prisoner asks that "sadistic" correctional
officer be removed. Hall v. Key, 476 So.2d 787 (Fla. App. 1985).
Guard liable for watching beating without
interfering. Thompson v. Jones, 619 F.Supp. 745 (D.C. Ill. 1985).
Single fist blow to inmate was justified.
Peebles v. Frey, 617 F.Supp. 1072 (D.C. Mo. 1985).
Two guards ordered to pay $40,000 for beating
inmate, who was a "troublemaker," according to a judge. Thomson
v. Jones and Baskin, U.S. District Court, Ill., Chicago Tribune, 10/9/85.
Using mace is acceptable alternative to physical force. Norris v. District
of Columbia, 614 F.Supp. 294 (D.C.D.C. 1985).
Settlement reached for alleged negligent
hiring and retention of violent guard, who bear 72-year-old arrestee. Zellmer
v. Turley, U.S. Dist. Ct. E.D. Wis., No. 83-C-405, July 10th 1984; obtained
from 28 ATLA L. Rep. 124, April, 1985.
Court believes officials version that force
was necessary. Morgan v. Wilkinson, 606 F.Supp. 564 (M.D. Pa. 1985).
No error in refusing to call witness too
far away. Jones v. Collier, 762 F.2d 71 (8th Cir. 1985).
Striking an inmate not a federal action.
Hurd v. Nolan, 610 F.Supp. 591 (D.C. Mo. 1985).
Repeated stomping is grounds for federal
jurisdiction. Harrison v. Byrd, 765 F.2d 501 (5th Cir. 1985).
Court improperly relied upon prison investigation
report on inmate beating; there may be liability for excessive force, but
not for being denied x-rays. El'amin v. Pearce, 750 F.2d 829 (10th Cir.
1984).
Co. and sheriff jointly liable for sheriff's
failure to train and investigate deputies, who beat prisoner. Marchese
v. Lucas, 758 F.2d 181 (6th Cir. 1985).
Warden and others liable for beating inmate
within minutes of his arrival. Parton v. Wyrick, (W.D. Mo.) No. 81-4023-CV-C-W
5/84; 28 ATLA L. Rep. 76 3/85.
Reporter must reveal confidential witness's
name to plaintiff. Miller v. Mecklenburg Co., 602 F.Supp. 675 (W.D.N.C.
1985).
O.K. to object to inconsistency of special
verdicts on appeal. Bates v. Jean, 745 F.2d 1146 (7th Cir. 1984).
Suit for beating by guards to proceed. K