recognizing that not every push or shove violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights but determining that, even if Mr. Munz initially created the disturbance and sustained no serious injury, Mr. Munz alleged much more, including that “while he was bound hand and foot, defendants took him into a padded cell and beat him violently,” sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on the level of force required and used
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that not every push or shove violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights but determining that, even if Mr. Munz initially created the disturbance and sustained no serious injury, Mr. Munz alleged much more, including that “while he was bound hand and foot, defendants took him into a padded cell and beat him violently,” sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on the level of force required and used
- concluding that “a state prisoner released from state prison into the custody of defendants pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum” “was a prisoner protected by the Eighth Amendment” on his excessive force claim (citing Sinito v. Kindt, 954 F.2d 467, 469 (7th Cir. 1992))
- holding when a federal court considers a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), it must view the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and must give the non-moving party all reasonable inferences from those facts
- law was clearly established in 1989 that officers violated inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights by beating him while he was bound hand and foot in cell, even if he initially created disturbance and sustained no serious injury
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.