Sickle cell crisis was objectively serious medical need; fact issues precluded summary judgment for nurse who failed to send detainee to ER and officer who failed complete required checks on detainee in restraint chair; other nurse’s conduct of failing to call doctor or perform further checks on detainee in restraint chair was not deliberate indifference.
In suit by children of wrongfully convicted father, court holds substantive due process right to family integrity is not implicated whenever a state deprives a child of interaction with parent through wrongful incarceration; claim requires that official act with culpable state of mind directed at family relationship.
Pretrial detainee in withdrawal from alcohol or drugs with severe vomiting and diarrhea, treated only with two doses of antiemetics prescribed by fax by doctor who never saw him died five days after arrest; court reviews impact of Kingsley on standard and concludes elements for pretrial detainee’s claim are now: “(1) that [plaintiff] had a sufficiently serious medical need and (2) that each defendant acted deliberately (not accidentally), [and] also recklessly in the face of an unjustifiably high risk of harm that is either known or so obvious that it should be known”;
Deploying dog against domestic violence suspect not excessive, where officers warned suspect dog would bite and suspect ran to house where weapons were stored; failure to use tasers did not render use of dog excessive, “Fourth Amendment does not require officers to use the best technique available as long as their method is reasonable under the circumstances”; use of deadly force against suspect after he picked up pistol was not excessive.
In suit by police and union representative, court holds city’s policy of not allowing private recording or videotaping interviews in city investigations into police misconduct did not violate First Amendment; prohibition on recording speech is not a prohibition on speaking; freedom of the press right of access to information does not require government to open all proceedings to public; officers’ appearance at interviews is a legitimate condition of employment and nonrecording policy rationally furthers a legitimate government interest.
Officials who testified at depositions in civil case did not waive Fifth Amendment privilege at trial in same case.
Assuming plaintiff did not actively resist arrest, taking him to ground, beating him, and fracturing his wrist would violate clearly establish rights and foreclose qualified immunity.
One has the right to be free from physical force and use of taser when one is not actively resisting police.
Plaintiff sufficiently alleged subjective prong of claim under 8th Amendment for failure to protect prisoner from widespread presence of drugs at state prison, based on claim that prisoner’s risk of death from fentanyl was obvious to warden, warden’s assistant, and two inspectors, because in days immediately preceding prisoner’s death two other prisoners in unit of 12 -16 prisoners had overdosed.
Absence of knowledge of identity of corrections officer who allegedly orchestrated a drug smuggling ring at prison was not a “mistake” regarding officer’s identity, as would allow claims against officer to relate back for limitations purposes under FRCP 15(c)(1)(c)).