Use of force.

U.S. Appeals Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

PEPPER SPRAY

Despain v. Uphoff, 264 F.3d 965 (10th Cir. 2001). A prison inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against prison officials alleging Eighth Amendment violations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the officials and the inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The appeals court held that flooding of the prison's administrative segregation unit was a significant deprivation, as required to support an Eighth Amendment claim, and that there was an issue of material fact as to whether there was an ongoing threat to safety during the flooding that would justify the inmate's exposure to human waste. Because the inmate's extended exposure to human waste as a result of flooding was a violation of clearly established law, the court found that an associate prison warden was not entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found that the inmate stated a claim of excessive use of force in his allegation that a corrections officer indiscriminately discharged pepper spray. (Wyoming Sta te Penitentiary)

U.S. District Court

BRUTALITY

Ducally v. Rhode Island Dept. of Corrections 160 F.Supp.2d 220 (D.R.I. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a corrections department and corrections officers alleging cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed the claims against the department, but found that the prisoner stated a claim against an officer with his allegations that the officer intentionally slammed a cell door on his hand and delayed the provision of medical care. The prisoner alleged that he suffered two cuts, swollen fingers, and loss of power and feeling in his fingers and hand. (Adult Correctional Institution, Cranston, Rhode Island)

EXCESSIVE FORCE

U.S. Appeals Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

PEPPER SPRAY

Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against a corrections officer alleging the use of excessive force in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The district court entered judgment on a jury verdict, awarded nominal damages of $1 plus interest and costs, and awarded attorney fees. The appeals court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed in part. The appeals court held that the award of nominal damages for an Eighth Amendment violation was permissible, and that the finding of use of excessive force was supported by evidence. The appeals court found that the award of attorney fees was subject to the cap established by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and that the PLRA cap on attorney fees did not violate the equal protection clause. The court noted that under the provisions of PLRA, if non-monetary relief of some kind had been ordered, whether or not there was also a monetary award, the attorney fees cap would not apply. (Moberly Correct ional Center, Missouri)

U.S. District Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Jones-Bey v. Conlev 144 F.Supp.2d 1035 (N.D.Ind. 2000). A state prisoner brought a civil rights suit against prison guards and a nurse, alleging use of excessive force and deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the deliberate indifference claim, finding that although the prisoner's injuries were serious, a nurse examined him within a few hours of the incident and made arrangements for further examination by another nurse that same afternoon. The district court denied summary judgment on the excessive force claims, finding genuine issues of fact regarding the degree of force used by guards in extracting the prisoner from his cell and restraining him after he was handcuffed and shackled. The court also found that a prison guard who had a realistic opportunity to step forward and prevent a fellow guard from violating a prisoner's rights through the excessive use of force, hut fails to do so, can beheld liable for an Eighth Amendment violati on. (Maximum Control Complex, Westville, Indiana)