Plaintiff’s contention he was hit in face with flashlight while handcuffed states a claim

Swearing match between plaintiff and defendant officer over whether officer struck plaintiff in the face with a flashlight while plaintiff was handcuffed was sufficient to deny summary judgment for unreasonable and excessive force. Jones v. Wheeler, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40313 (E.D. Ark. June 1, 2007).*

Excessive force claim fails where force used was less than that found in an Eleventh Circuit case to be insufficient. Manning v. City of Atlanta, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40276 (N.D. Ga. June 1, 2007)*:

Here, the facts show that Defendant Price and the other officers used far less force than in Nolin. The officers handcuffed Plaintiff, and upon being informed that he was injured, the officers called for an ambulance. When the ambulance arrived, the officers placed Plaintiff on a bed sheet and dragged him up the hill because the paramedics were unable to reach Plaintiff with a gurney. The court finds that the officers’ actions were objectively reasonable considering the context and facts of the situation.

Summary judgment against false arrest action denied. Saucier analysis is problematic and expected at this point in the case. Questions of fact remained on cause for arrest. Friermuth v. City of Puyallup, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40352 (W.D. Wash. June 1, 2007):

It is not unusual for the Saucier test to be problematic. This case is no exception. The tension between the directive to make an early determination, and the “reasonableness” of the officer’s actions in the context of summary judgment can be difficult. That is especially true in this case where plaintiff’s explanation for defendant Pihl’s behavior appears to be that he was deliberately untruthful, as opposed to being negligent or mistaken in his judgment. The basis of this credibility characterization is based, in part, on plaintiff’s position that Pihl’s reported observations of plaintiff’s behavior could not be true given the subsequently revealed alcohol and drug test results. This is important given the admonition by the Saucier Court that the court must consider the right in the context of the case.

Because the court is satisfied that the alleged constitutional right to be free from an unlawful search and seizure was well known to defendant Pihl, and because there are questions of fact as to whether or not the arrest was reasonable defendant Pihl’s motions for summary judgment and qualified immunity are denied.

Prison inmate’s claim of Fourth Amendment violation failed as frivolous because he never alleged that they were unreasonable, which would be incredibly hard anyway. Creer v. Caldwell Corr. Ctr., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40187 (W.D. La. April 5, 2007).*