Plaintiff overcame qualified immunity here because he was unnecessarily left handcuffed without any objective reason for it. There was no reasonable suspicion. Haynes v. Minnehan, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 28550 (8th Cir. Sept. 21, 2021).
In this prison search case, “Summary judgment on Johnson’s Fourth Amendment claim was proper because the searches were justified by penological interests and were reasonable as to scope, manner, and place. See Byrd v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135, 1141 (9th Cir. 2011) (factors for evaluating reasonableness of a search under the Fourth Amendment); see also Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328, 333 (9th Cir. 1988) (inmates must show that prison officials ‘intentionally used exaggerated or excessive means to enforce security’ to support a Fourth Amendment claim); Case v. Kitsap County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 249 F.3d 921, 930 (9th Cir. 2001) (‘[T]here is no § 1983 liability for violating prison policy. [Plaintiff] must prove that [the official] violated his constitutional right.’).” Johnson v. Peters, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 28417 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2021).*