Holding that even though a detainee attempted to strike a guard, putting substantial pressure on the detainee’s back, tasing him, and applying a neck hold was disproportionate to the need after the detainee was brought to the floor

Summary of this case from Fairchild v. Coryell Cnty.

Holding that prison personnel “may thus be liable under § 1983 for indifference manifested in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with treatment once prescribed”

Summary of this case from Paugh v. Uintah Cnty.

Holding that clearly established law put the defendants on notice that “the use of [significant or lethal] force on a person who is not resisting and who is restrained in handcuffs is disproportionate”

Summary of this case from Stevenson v. City of Albuquerque

Holding that while the Fourth Amendment governs excessive force claims “arising from ‘treatment of an arrestee detained without a warrant and prior to any probable cause hearing,” the Fourteenth Amendment standard “governs excessive force claims arising from post-arrest and pre-conviction treatment if the arrestee has been taken into custody pursuant to a warrant supported by probable cause” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)

Summary of this case from Scallion v. Richardson

Holding right to be free from excessive force was clearly established despite uncertainty about whether claim arose under Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, or Fourteenth Amendment

Summary of this case from Davis v. Murphy

Holding that disputed issues of fact existed as to whether the defendants could have prevented or stopped the assault, because “the [d]efendants were present and observed the entire use of force over a two-to-three minute period”

Summary of this case from Eller v. Tonche

Holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to an excessive force claim by a pretrial detainee arrested pursuant to a warrant

Summary of this case from Nosewicz v. Janosko

Finding it clearly established that “the use of violent physical force against a criminal suspect or detainee ‘who already has been subdued and does not present a danger to himself or others'” is unlawful

Summary of this case from Chapman v. Hedderman

Finding the use of a taser to be excessive, and holding that ” reasonable jury could conclude that a lesser degree of force would have exacted compliance and that this use of force was disproportionate to the need”

Summary of this case from Adkins v. City of Colo. Springs

Finding pretrial detainee’s right to be free of excessive force, including use of neck restraint, stun gun, and pressure on his back, while he was on his stomach and not resisting was clearly established

Summary of this case from Quintana v. City of Denver

Finding personal liability under § 1983, where “all Defendants actively participated in a coordinated use of force on Mr. Booker: Deputy Grimes applied the carotid hold; Deputy Gomez helped handcuff Mr. Booker; Deputy Robinette handcuffed him and applied pressure to his back; Deputy Sharp applied the OPN; and Sergeant Rodriguez used the taser”

Summary of this case from Halik v. Brown

Finding that a chokehold used for approximately two and a half minutes on a pretrial detainee who was accused of swinging his arm toward a deputy could be excessive when the deputy was trained to only use the chokehold for one minute, the inmate was already face-down on the ground, and the move contributed to the inmate’s death.

Summary of this case from McCoy v. Meyers

Concluding that the defendants were on notice that use of force, including a taser, “on a person who is not resisting and who is restrained in handcuffs is disproportionate” violated detainee’s constitutional right.

Summary of this case from United States v. Buntyn

Concluding “the contours of the right are clearly established such that any reasonable officer in the [d]efendants’ position (and with their training) would have known that failing to check [the plaintiff-inmate’s] vital signs, perform CPR, or seek medical care for three minutes when he was limp and unconscious . . . could violate the Constitution”

Summary of this case from Estate of Lillis v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs

Concluding the contours of the right are clearly established such that any reasonable officer in the [d]efendants’ position (and with their training) would have known that failing to check [the plaintiff-inmate’s] vital signs, perform CPR, or seek medical care for three minutes when he was limp and unconscious . . . could violate the Constitution” (citing McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974, 983 (8th Cir. 2009) (denying qualified immunity where the officer-defendant “made no attempt to resuscitate” the inmate “for seven minutes before paramedics arrive[d]”))

Summary of this case from Estate of Stieb v. Johnson

Concluding reasonable jury could find that deputies used excessive force against arrestee during booking process when—while arrestee was handcuffed, face down on ground, and subdued by multiple deputies—one deputy placed substantial pressure on arrestee’s back, a second deputy used a Taser on arrestee for three seconds longer than recommended, a third deputy applied a carotid restraint for approximately two and a half minutes, and arrestee died as a result of the carotid restraint

Summary of this case from Harper v. Tirello

Ruling on an excessive force case and holding “‘a law enforcement official who fails to intervene to prevent another law enforcement official’s use of excessive force may be liable under § 1983′”

Summary of this case from Jordanoff v. Lester

Determining which amendment applies to an allegation of excessive force requires consideration of where the plaintiff finds himself in the criminal justice system; any force leading up to and including arrest is actionable under the Fourth Amendment, while the Fourteenth Amendment governs any claim of excessive force brought by a pretrial detainee

Summary of this case from Harte v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Johnson Cnty.

Denying qualified immunity where officers delayed seeking medical care for three minutes after their use of force left inmate “limp and unconscious”

Summary of this case from Estate of Beauford v. Mesa Cnty., Colo.

Denying summary judgment and qualified immunity to government defendants on failure to intervene in excessive use of force where plaintiffs’ genuinely disputed facts, if true, would constitute a clearly established excessive use of force

Summary of this case from Debra Jones & Arden C. Post v. Norton

Denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s excessive force claim because “[defendant] used the carotid restraint for approximately two and a half minutes” and “continued to use the restraint while [plaintiff] was handcuffed in a prone, face-down position on the ground”

Summary of this case from Harris v. Ealey

Denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds on the basis that an officer who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim of another officer’s use of excessive force “can be held liable for his nonfeasance”

Summary of this case from Hall v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville

Denying qualified immunity where “the myriad factual disputes preclude summary judgment” on the issue of whether defendants violated a constitutional right

Summary of this case from Jordanoff v. Lester

Affirming denial of summary judgment to officers who failed to seek medical assistance for three minutes for pretrial detainee after they placed him in a chokehold until he was unconscious and then tased him for eight seconds

Summary of this case from Deal v. Kincaid

Rejecting an argument that a plaintiff could not rely on Fourth Amendment excessive force cases to show law was clearly established under the Fourteenth Amendment, because “the Graham Fourth Amendment excessive force factors are consistent with the disproportionate force analysis under the Fourteenth Amendment”

Summary of this case from O’Farrell v. Bd. of Comm’rs