From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Iko v. Shreve

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Aug 6, 2008
535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2008)

Summary

holding that deliberate indifference requires a showing that defendants "must have actually known that that their response was inadequate"

Summary of this case from Shover v. Chestnut

Opinion

No. 07-7569.

Argued: May 14, 2008.

Decided: August 6, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Deborah K. Chasanow, J.

ARGUED: Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Office Of The Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Paul Lawrence Knight, O'Connor Hannan, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. Gary C. Adler, Roetzel Andress, LPA, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HENRY F. FLOYD, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by published opinion. Judge DUNCAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge MICHAEL and Judge FLOYD joined.



OPINION


Summaries of

Iko v. Shreve

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Aug 6, 2008
535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2008)

holding that deliberate indifference requires a showing that defendants "must have actually known that that their response was inadequate"

Summary of this case from Shover v. Chestnut

holding that "[a]n injury is sufficiently serious for purposes of the objective component of an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim as long as it rises above the level of de minimis harm"

Summary of this case from Harris v. Salley

holding correctional officer not entitled to qualified immunity where additional chemical agent was deployed into inmate's cell after inmate attempted to comply with officer's order, did not react violently, and officer failed to remove inmate's clothes or secure medical care for inmate after chemical agent exposure

Summary of this case from Horton v. Zais

holding correctional officer not entitled to qualified immunity where additional chemical agent was deployed into inmate's cell after inmate attempted to comply with officer's order, did not react violently, and officer failed to remove inmate's clothes or secure medical care for inmate after chemical agent exposure

Summary of this case from Mobley v. Mallow

holding that once a prisoner is placed into the care of appropriate medical personnel, " 'a nonmedical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands' " (quoting Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004))

Summary of this case from Lewis v. Hoke Cnty.

holding that a medical need is objectively serious when it is "one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention"

Summary of this case from Young v. Morgan

holding it was objectively unreasonable for officers to fail to attend to a nonresponsive detainee whom the officers had repeatedly pepper-sprayed before leaving him face down on the floor

Summary of this case from Burns v. Ashraf

holding that using pepper spray on an inmate attempting to comply with orders could be disproportionate to the need for force

Summary of this case from Goodwyn v. Roop

holding that a correctional officer violated the Eighth Amendment when he deployed pepper spray into an inmate's cell after the inmate attempted to comply with the correctional officer's order and did not react violently, and the officer failed to remove the inmate's clothes or secure medical care after the incident

Summary of this case from Germain v. Gilpin

holding a correctional officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where an additional chemical agent was deployed into the inmate's cell after the inmate attempted to comply with officer's order, did not react violently, and the officer failed to remove inmate's clothes or secure medical care for inmate after chemical agent exposure

Summary of this case from Brown v. Warden

holding correctional officer not entitled to qualified immunity where additional chemical agent was deployed into inmate's cell after inmate attempted to comply with officer's order, did not react violently, and officer failed to remove inmate's clothes or secure medical care for inmate after chemical agent exposure

Summary of this case from Ireland v. Moyer

holding it was objectively unreasonable for officers to fail to attend to a nonresponsive detainee whom the officers had repeatedly pepper-sprayed before leaving him face down on the floor

Summary of this case from Krell v. Queen Anne's Cnty.

holding excessive force claim viable where officers continued deploying pepper spray after plaintiff had clearly stopped resisting

Summary of this case from Allen v. Anderson

holding a correctional officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where an additional chemical agent was deployed into the inmate's cell after the inmate attempted to comply with officer's order, did not react violently, and the officer failed to remove inmate's clothes or secure medical care for inmate after chemical agent exposure

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Ortt

holding a correctional officer was not entitled to qualified immunity where an additional chemical agent was deployed into the inmate's cell after the inmate attempted to comply with officer's order, did not react violently, and the officer failed to remove inmate's clothes or secure medical care for inmate after chemical agent exposure

Summary of this case from Murphy v. Soltas

holding correctional officer not entitled to qualified immunity where additional chemical agent was deployed into inmate's cell after inmate attempted to comply with officer's order, did not react violently, and officer failed to remove inmate's clothes or secure medical care for inmate after chemical agent exposure

Summary of this case from Rodgers v. Stallings

holding correctional officer not entitled to qualified immunity where additional chemical agent was deployed into inmate's cell after inmate attempted to comply with officer's order, did not react violently, and officer failed to remove inmate's clothes or secure medical care for inmate after chemical agent exposure

Summary of this case from Kitchen v. Ickes

holding that once an inmate has been placed into the care of appropriate medical personnel, "'a non-medical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands'" (quoting Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004))

Summary of this case from White v. Levin

holding that once an inmate has been placed into the care of appropriate medical personnel, '"a nonmedical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands'" (quoting Spruill v.Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004))

Summary of this case from Trisler v. Prison Health Servs., Inc.

holding that "minor" injuries are actionable if they "rise[] above the level of de minimus harm"

Summary of this case from Davis v. Rouse

holding that once an inmate has been placed into the care of appropriate medical personnel, "'a nonmedical prison official will generally be justified in believing that the prisoner is in capable hands.'" (quoting Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004))

Summary of this case from Shabazz v. Prison Health Servs. Inc.

finding use of pepper spray during cell extraction of nonconfrontational inmate constituted excessive force

Summary of this case from Greene v. Feaster

finding genuine issue of material fact when prison guard deployed several bursts of pepper spray on docile prisoner

Summary of this case from Boone v. Stallings

finding that the failure to "seek[] any medical evaluation or even decontamination" after an inmate collapsed due to pepper spray constituted medical deliberate indifference

Summary of this case from Parker v. Maryland

finding use of pepper spray during cell extraction of nonconfrontational inmate constituted excessive force

Summary of this case from Lowe v. Ballard
Case details for

Iko v. Shreve

Case Details

Full title:Benny IKO, Personal representative of the Estate of Ifeanyi A. Iko; Loreen…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Aug 6, 2008

Citations

535 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Petersen v. Midgett

Thus, a plaintiff must prove “that the officers acted with ‘deliberate indifference’ (subjective) to the…

Petersen v. Midgett

Thus, a plaintiff must prove "that the officers acted with ‘deliberate indifference’ (subjective) to the…