Handcuffing too tight without injury not a viable § 1983 claim

Excessive force claims are evaluated without regard to the lawfulness of the underlying arrest. Handcuffing too tight does not give rise to liability without proof of injury. Gray v. Horton, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4194 (S.D. La. January 18, 2008):

Gray also alleges that he suffered a constitutional violation because Horton and Cox used excessive force in his arrest. His claim of excessive force is separate and distinct from his unlawful arrest claim and, therefore, the court must analyze the excessive force claim without regard to whether his arrest was justified. Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 417 (5th Cir. 2007) (The fact that an arrest was unlawful “does not, however, mean that any force used by [officers] to effectuate the arrest was necessarily excessive.”).

. . .

Physical confrontations when a person is arrested or detained by an officer may result in injuries that do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The Fifth Circuit has failed to find excessive force when a plaintiff alleged that an officer placed handcuffs on her too tightly, thereby causing her wrists to swell. See Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2001). In Glenn, the Fifth Circuit stated that “handcuffing too tightly, without more, does not amount to excessive force,” Id. at 314. Similarly, Gray’s allegations that Horton verbally accosted and pointed his weapon at him are insufficient to rise to the level of a constitutional injury. See Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993) (citing McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 146 (5th Cir, 1983)) (As a general rule, threatening language and accompanying gestures, even if true, do not amount to a constitutional violation).

Even if Gray’s arrest or detention was itself unlawful, his claim for excessive force fails as a matter of law.

Sheriff’s civil process server was serving process and put a foot in the door of defendant’s hotel room to hand him the papers. Defendant then slammed the door on him, assaulting him. The officer entered to arrest and subdue him, and a search incident to that arrest found crack. The entry by the officer’s foot was not unconstitutional. United States v. Cosey, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4138 (S.D. Iowa January 18, 2008).*

Motion in limine granted in § 1983 case for exclusion of a warrantless search claim since plaintiff pled an invasion of privacy never putting the defense on notice that a warrantless search was at issue. Mangum v. City of Pocatello, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4147 (D. Idaho January 18, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.