Use of force.

U.S. District Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Craw v. Gray 159 F.Supp.2d 679 (N.D.Ohio 2001). An arrestee sued law enforcement officers under [SS] 1983 asserting claims for use of excessive force. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor oft he officers, finding that the allegations did not support a claim for inadequate training of an officer and that past "use of force" incident reports did not support the claim for inadequate supervision of the officer. According to the court, the assertion that a particular officer may be unsatisfactorily trained does not alone "suffice to fasten ?? 1983 liability" on a municipality for failure to train. The court noted that none of the reports showed that the deputy acted improperly. The officer had brought the arrestee to a county jail and during the booking process an altercation between the arrestee and the officer resulted in a right hip fracture and dislocation for the arrestee. (Mercer County Jail, Ohio)

U.S. District Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Davis v. Hill 173 F.Supp.2d 1136 (D.Kan. 2001). An arrestee brought a ?? 1983 action against a county, sheriff, and employees alleging that he was the victim of excessive force while detained. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion in part, and denied it in part. The court held that fact issues as to whether sheriff's deputies beat the arrestee senseless in his cell precluded summary judgment on the detainee's Fourth Amendment excessive force claim. The court also found that the arrestee could maintain a suit against deputies who were near the cell at the time, despite his inability to identify the two who allegedly administered the beating. The arrestee was allegedly handcuffed in his cell during a staff shift change. The arrestee was yelling and kicking his cell door and alleged that an officer entered the cell and hit him behind his ear, knocking him into the steel bed and against a steel wall, and then ground his thumb behind the arrestee's ear. According to the arrestee, another officer entered and the two "proceeded attacking and torturing me on every joint in my body..." (Sedgwick County Adult Detention Facility, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001). An inmate brought a [ss] 1983 action against prison officials after being shot during a prison riot The district court denied the officials' motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and they appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded, finding that the officials were qualifiedly immune from civil rights liability and were not deliberately indifferent. The court noted that prison officials had investigated rumors of impending inmate violence before the riot and there was no evidence that they should have done anything differently once the threat materialized. According to the court, a prison warden complied with a statewide housing practice and he had no affirmative duty to change the policy. The inmate bad been shot in the neck during the disturbance. (California State Prison, Sacramento)

U.S. District Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Morris v. Crawford County, Ark. 173 F.supp.2d 870 (W.D.Ark. 2001). A detainee in a county jail brought a [ss] 1983 action and state law battery claims against the county, sheriff and deputies. The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to the type of force used by a deputy against the detainee, and whether the detainee sustained injuries, precluding summary judgment. The court also found that the deputy was not entitled to qualified immunity for his alleged use of force on the detainee, who was allegedly not resisting. There was evidence that the deputy used a "knee drop" on the detainee, thereby severing his intestine. (Crawford County Detention Center, Arkansas)

U.S. District Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Piedra v. True. 169 F.Supp.2d 1239 (D.Kan. 2001). A federal prisoner brought an action alleging that assaults by prison officers violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the officers, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity for beating the prisoner while he was handcuffed. According to the court, it was not clearly established at the time that guards could not use force on a combative prisoner who was handcuffed. The court noted that medical records did not support the prisoner's claim that he was repeatedly beaten. According to the court, the prisoner swung a telephone, kicked, spat and verbally assaulted the officers. (United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas)

U.S. District Court

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Pittman v. Kurtz, 165 F.Supp.2d 1243 (D.Kan. 2001). An inmate brought an action against jail officials and a county jail alleging that he was physically assaulted by staff while he was incarcerated at the jail, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the force applied by jail officials to restrain the inmate did not violate his rights. The inmate had refused to go to his cell after multiple orders to do so, and struck at one official with a pencil, hitting him in the neck and shoulder area between six and ten times. The altercation lasted only a few seconds and the inmate's injuries were minor. (Sedgwick County Jail, Kansas)

U.S. Appeals Court

CELL EXTRACTION EXCESSIVE FORCE

Skrtich v. Thornton 267 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001). A prisoner brought a ?? 1983 action against corrections officers, alleging he was subjected to excessive and unjustified use of force while incarcerated. The court denied summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that the officers' alleged beating of the prisoner during a cell extraction, after he had been incapacitated by a shock from an electronic shield, violated the prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. The court found that if proven, the alleged actions violated clearly established constitutional law and the officers would not be protected by qualified immunity. According to the court, the prisoner's injuries did not result from a de minimis use of force, where the injuries included multiple rib fractures, lacerations to the scalp, and abdominal injuries requiring hospitalization for nine days and months of rehabilitation. (Florida State Prison)

U.S. Appeals Court

CELL EXTRACTION EXCESSIVE FORCE

Skrtich v. Thornton 267 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001). A prisoner brought a ?? 1983 action against corrections officers, alleging he was subjected to excessive and unjustified use of force while incarcerated. The court denied summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that the officers' alleged beating of the prisoner during a cell extraction, after he had been incapacitated by a shock from an electronic shield, violated the prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights. The court found that if proven, the alleged actions violated clearly established constitutional law and the officers would not be protected by qualified immunity. According to the court, the prisoner's injuries did not result from a de minimis use of force, where the injuries included multiple rib fractures, lacerations to the scalp, and abdominal injuries requiring hospitalization for nine days and months of rehabilitation. (Florida State Prison)

U.S. District Court

STUN GUN

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Velasco v. Head 166 F.Suppd.2d 1100 (W.D.Va. 2000). A state prisoner sued correctional officers alleging he was subjected to the malicious use of force during an intake procedure, seeking monetary damages for his alleged personal injuries. The district court denied summary judgment in favor of the officers, finding that material fact issues regarding whether the prisoner's shackles were stepped on by correctional officers, and at what point a stun gun was used, precluded summary judgment. The court found that if the allegations regarding the use of a stun gun were proven true, the prisoner would not be required to prove that he suffered a permanent injury to prove that he was subjected to the malicious use of force. (Wallens Ridge State Prison, Virginia)