Arrestee plaintiff pled due process, but it\u2019s a Fourth Amendment claim for not \u201cprovid[ing] objectively reasonable post-arrest [medical] care to Plaintiff, a non-pretrial detainee, by \u2018imped[ing] the medical staff from completing their task and pressuring them to discharge [Plaintiff],\u2019 which the staff allegedly heeded although Plaintiff was not in the \u2018right state of mind or condition to be discharged\u2019 \u2026. (FAC at 21.)\u201d It survives for now. Allen v. Summit, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161598 n.2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 6, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this excessive force case, defendant Nissen entered the scene after plaintiff was subdued after a high-speed chase and flight from the police. Fact questions remained on what was necessary or reasonable at the time. Ambler v. Nissen, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23001 (5th Cir. Sep. 10, 2024).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There\u2019s a fact question for trial, and the denial of qualified immunity can\u2019t be appealed. Lyoya v. Schurr, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 23052 (6th Cir. Sep. 9, 2024).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Arrestee plaintiff pled due process, but it\u2019s a Fourth Amendment claim for not \u201cprovid[ing] objectively reasonable post-arrest [medical] care to Plaintiff, a non-pretrial detainee, by \u2018imped[ing] the medical staff from completing their task and pressuring them to discharge [Plaintiff],\u2019 which … Continue reading