\u201cMerely alleging that Jones’ conducting pat-down searches \u2018without a legitimate reason\u2019 is insufficient to state a plausible claim of a Fourth Amendment violation. Under the Fourth Amendment, \u2018[t]he touchstone of whether a given search or seizure is reasonable is whether the jail’s \u201cneed for the particular search\u201d outweighs \u201cthe invasion of personal rights that the search entails.\u201d\u2019 … \u2018To this end, \u201c[c]ourts must consider the scope of the particular intrusion, the manner in which it is conducted, the justification for initiating it, and the place in which it is conducted.\u201d\u2019 … Dykes’ Complaint does not provide any allegations that bear on this analysis, given that he summarily asserts that Jones conducted pat-down searches \u2018without a legitimate reason.\u2019 Accordingly, Dykes’ pat-down-search claim was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim.\u201d Dykes v. Marshall, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30498 (6th Cir. Oct. 10, 2019).*<\/p>\n
Plaintiff stated a claim for excessive force against this individual defendant for needlessly pepper spraying him in the eyes in jail. Two people not that defendant took him to his cell after it happened. Who did it is a jury question. Batson v. Hoover<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 30489 (6th Cir. Oct. 11, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cMerely alleging that Jones’ conducting pat-down searches \u2018without a legitimate reason\u2019 is insufficient to state a plausible claim of a Fourth Amendment violation. Under the Fourth Amendment, \u2018[t]he touchstone of whether a given search or seizure is reasonable is whether … Continue reading