Thomas v. Byrd

4 Citing cases

  1. Townsend v. Merchant

    CIVIL 4:23-cv-04002-SOH-CDC (W.D. Ark. Jul. 1, 2024)

    the jury could find such use of force excessive. See Ramirez v. Ferguson, Civil No. 08-CV-5038-ELS, 2011 WL 1157997, at *14-15 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 29, 2011) (holding the use of pepper spray on a noncompliant pretrial detainee was excessive when used simply because the detainee could not comply with order while intoxicated in a lockdown cell); Thomas v. Byrd, Civil No. 4:08-CV-03840-SWW/BD, 2009 WL 4546666 at *10 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 30, 2009) (holding “[n]oncompliance alone is an insufficient justification to pepper spray a nonthreatening pretrial detainee in the face and eyes” when the detainee dressed slowly in his uniform and then refused to put down a bar of soap after being ordered to do so). Based on these disputed facts, the Court cannot determine, as a matter of law, whether Defendant Merchant's actions in spraying Plaintiff was objectively reasonable under Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 398-99.

  2. Martz v. Webb

    Civil No. 4:18-cv-4047 (W.D. Ark. Apr. 30, 2019)

    Consequently, Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant Randall exhibited any "malicious or sadistic" conduct when the pepper spray was deployed. See Thomas v. Byrd, Civ. No. 08-03840, 2009 WL 4546666, *8 (E.D. Ark. 2009) (dismissing with prejudice an excessive force claim where a prison official did not intend to pepper spray the plaintiff but instead was protecting himself against another inmate). It necessarily follows that the other Defendants, who were not personally involved in the deployment of the pepper spray, did not engage in any force against Plaintiff.

  3. Wiggan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr.

    12 Civ. 1405 (GBD)(HBP) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    And in Thomas v. Byrd, No. 4:08CV03840 SWW/BD, 2009 WL 4546666 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 30, 2009), the plaintiff was slow getting dressed after showering and the correction officer had repeatedly admonished him to dress faster. After plaintiff had dressed, the correction officer sprayed plaintiff in the face with pepper spray.

  4. Ault v. Baker

    Case No. 4:12-cv-00228-KGB (E.D. Ark. Mar. 27, 2013)   Cited 5 times
    Dismissing claim under single-incident theory where plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts showing consequences of lack of training as to excessive force and medical needs were patently obvious

    The use of force against the plaintiff must have been necessary to further some legitimate institutional interest such as safety, security, or efficiency. Thomas v. Byrd, No. 4:08cv03840 SWW/BD, 2009 WL 4546666 (E.D. Ark. Nov. 30, 2009). Furthermore, the force used must not have exceeded the degree to which a reasonable officer would have believed necessary to achieve those goals.