Even if the inmate provoked the initial argument with corrections officials, the inmate may sue officials who allegedly used excessive force and continued to beat the inmate, after he was lying on the ground in handcuffs. The plaintiff inmate alleged the following facts, which have not been proven. On April 13, 2011, Officer Scholds ordered the plaintiff inmate, Sean Schadee, to finish up his call to his girlfriend. The plaintiff inmate complied and commenced arguing with Officer Kidd. Allegedly, Officers Scholds and Kidd punched the plaintiff, and then tripped and kicked the plaintiff. In response to a code, other corrections officers allegedly arrived and pepper sprayed and beat the plaintiff, even after he lay on the floor in handcuffs, while officers watched. The plaintiff allegedly was given a shower, seen briefly by a nurse, and returned to his cell. Later that day, the plaintiff returned to the medical facility, where he remained two days. He filed an internal grievance, alleging excessive use of force. The grievance was denied, and the plaintiff inmate filed a civil-rights suit, alleging excessive use of force, failure of officers who observed the beating to intervene and to protect, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of a prisoner. Absent allegations that Warden Quiros knew about or was involved in the alleged beating, or received or responded to the plaintiff's internal grievance, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims against Warden Quiros. The 11th Amendment barred claims for monetary damages against 21 defendants in their official capacities. The plaintiff's complaint adequately alleged claims against Officers Scholds, Kidd and 19 others, in their individual capacities. The court ordered the remaining defendants to file answers or motions to dismiss within 70 days.   

VIEW FULL CASE