King v. Davis

Background

King sued Sergeant Demichael Dews and other officers over an altercation at a hospital. The altercation began in King’s hospital room and continued in a hallway. Dews tackled King, while Officers Nee and Tran placed him in four-point restraints. King continued moving and struggling, and Dews and Tran, with help from hospital staff, continued using their body weight to restrain him. A doctor prescribed an antipsychotic medication, after which King stopped struggling and the officers released him. A nurse then raised a concern that King was not breathing.

King argued that, after he was placed in restraints, his movements reflected a struggle to breathe rather than continued resistance. A hospital security guard testified that King was largely under control when the guard arrived and did not see King try to hit or kick anyone or aggressively try to escape the officers’ hold.

Eighth Amendment claim

The court applied the standard for force used by a prison official to respond to a disturbance threatening the safety of staff and others. Under that standard, force does not violate the Eighth Amendment when it is used in a good-faith effort to restore order rather than maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.

The court concluded that the evidence was undisputed. King’s escape into the hallway created a significant safety risk, and the situation remained volatile because King continued to struggle even after being placed in four-point restraints. The court found no indication that the officers used more force than necessary before King stopped struggling after the medication was administered. It also found that the security guard’s testimony did not create a genuine dispute of material fact because the testimony was unclear about when the guard arrived and, importantly, still showed that King continued to struggle after being restrained.

The court additionally stated that, even if King’s account were accepted, the officers would be entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity can protect officials from damages when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unconstitutional. The court found that no cited case established an Eighth Amendment violation on similar facts and that it was not obvious that reasonable officers had to stop restraining King earlier.

Other constitutional claims

The court stated that the same evidence did not support King’s claim that the officers’ conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment by being conscience-shocking. It also rejected the alternative First Amendment claim. The court further stated that the officers would have qualified immunity on those claims.

Other motions and disposition

The court denied Dews’ objection to the relevance of a jail call between King and his sister. It denied King’s motion to seal without prejudice because the motion did not explain why there was a compelling reason to keep the documents inaccessible to the public. The court ordered King, within seven days, either to file a renewed motion addressing that standard or to file the unredacted documents on the docket.

The court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment.