This Court has previously dismissed plaintiff's claims against ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). Once the movant has done so, however, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Rather, the non-movant must then “make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of every element essential to his case, based on the affidavits or by depositions and admissions on file.” Harter v. GAF Corp., 967 F.2d 846, 852 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). When there are cross-motions, each motion must be considered separately, and each side must still establish a lack of genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rains v. Cascade Indus., Inc., 402 F.2d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 1968); see also Sterling v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 926 F. Supp. 65, 68 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (citing United States v. Hall, 730 F. Supp. 646, 648 (M.D. Pa. 1990)); Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2720. I. ANALYSIS Plaintiff brings his claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which requires plaintiff to demonstrate that: (1) a person deprived him of a federal right; and (2) the person who deprived him of that right acted under color of state law. See Gorman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628, 633 (3d Cir. 1995). 6
Here, plaintiff alleges that he was deprived of his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment when defendants, acting under color of state law, unjustly utilized excessive force against plaintiff. It is undisputed that defendants were acting under color of state law. Thus, the issue is whether the force used by defendants constitutes a violation of plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as prohibiting “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Hudson v. McMillan, 503 U.S. 1, 5, 112 S. Ct. 995 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S. Ct. 1078 (1986)). To determine whether defendants violated plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights, the Court must analyze: (1) whether defendants acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind; and (2) whether the alleged wrongdoing was “sufficiently serious” to establish a constitutional violation. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. In instances where prison officials stand accused of using excessive force against a prisoner, the core issue is whether the officers' use of force was applied “in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm.” Id. at 6-7. Factors which may aid in determining whether the force utilized by the officers was wanton and unnecessary are: (1) the extent of the injuries suffered; (2) the need for the application of force; (3) the relationship between the need and the amount of force used; (4) the threat 7
Page 1 and 2: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Page 3 and 4: Yoder handcuffed plaintiff with his
Page 5: a misconduct report for assault iss
Page 9 and 10: injuries consisted of slight abrasi
Page 11 and 12: assaulting both C.O. Mensinger and
Page 13: AND IT IS SO ORDERED. _____________

This Court has previously dismissed plaintiff's claims against ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?