Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Glynn Ward v. Oromde

September 12, 2011

GLYNN WARD,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
OROMDE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the written consent of all parties, this case is before the undersigned as the presiding judge for all purposes, including entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Pending before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 30).

I. BACKGROUND

This action concerns plaintiff's claim of excessive force applied in connection with his transport to an outside medical facility on August 14, 2008. As to the remaining defendants -- Oromde and Kirshner -- plaintiff claims: (1) Oromde applied handcuffs that were too tight and used a "torturous black box device" over the handcuffs during transport; and (2) Oromde and Kirshner kept plaintiff in a hot van following his medical appointment even though plaintiff was on "heat alert" medications.

Defendants' evidence in support of summary judgment consists of excerpts from plaintiff's deposition, as well as the declarations by the defendants and other witnesses. Defendants' evidence reflects the following:

1. On August 14, 2008, plaintiff was housed at California State Prison -- Sacramento ("CSP-SAC").

2. At the time, plaintiff was taking psychiatric medications classified as "heat alert medications" due to possible side effects inhibiting the body's natural cooling mechanisms (i.e., inhibits sweating).

3. On August 14, 2008, plaintiff was scheduled for a pre-operative medical appointment at U.C. Davis Medical Center; plaintiff was taken from his cell to the Receiving and Release, an area of the prison for inmate departures.

4. At Receiving and Release, defendant Oromde placed handcuffs on plaintiff, making sure that his index finger fit between plaintiff's wrists and the handcuffs.

5. While putting the handcuffs on, plaintiff felt a pinch and jumped; Oromde asked "What?" and plaintiff responded, "Man, it seems like it tight."

6. Oromde did not believe the handcuffs were too tight as he had just checked the tightness with this index finger and found the fit appropriate.

7. In response to plaintiff's complaint, Oromde clicked the handcuffs one click tighter and said, "See, I can go more if I wanted to. If it don't kill you, it's going to stay that way."

8. Plaintiff did not mention the handcuffs again until his return to the prison.

9. According to Oromde, the space between the handcuffs and plaintiff's wrist represented by the width of his index finger would have allowed for two or three more clicks without the handcuffs becoming too tight.

10. After putting on the handcuffs, Oromde then placed the remainder of the required security equipment on plaintiff (consisting of leg restraints, waist restraints, and a "black box" devise over the handcuffs; the black box device is designed to prevent inmates from picking the locks on handcuffs.

11. Once the restraints were in place, plaintiff and three other inmates were taken by van for an approximately 30-minute ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.