green
Positive treatment
Hot · 138 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 28×
83.0 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2021–2024 · 4 courts ·
…by 1998, our precedent clearly established that government officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Myers v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company
rule 12(g) specifically prohibits a party...from filing a second pre-answer motion to dismiss
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
CHAMBERS v. BUTLER
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
n officer who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim of another officer's use of excessive force can be held personally liable for his nonfeasance.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Terry Eugene Sears v. Vernia Roberts
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
n officer who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim of another officer's use of excessive force can be held liable for his nonfeasance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Paul Thompson, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia
n officer who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim of another officer's use of excessive force can be held personally liable for his nonfeasance.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rachel v. City of Mobile
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
it is not constitutionally permissible for officers to administer a beating as punishment for a prisoner's past misconduct.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McCullough Ex Rel. McCullough v. Antolini
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
on review of a district court's denial of summary judgment, the court considers the pleadings, depositions, affidavits, answers to interrogatories and admissions together with the affidavits if any ... in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rigdon v. Georgia Board of Regents
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
defendants who abuse the pretrial process through ... stalling ... may waive their right to raise the defense at the pretrial stage.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Danley v. Allen
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
government officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Manago v. Smith
in this circuit, a defense of qualified immunity is not available in cases alleging excessive force in violation of the eighth amendment, because the use of force 'maliciously and sadistically to cause harm' is clearly established to be a violation of the constitution.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
MORRISON v. RIVERA
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
ur precedent clearly established that government officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Grimage v. Levai
overnment officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Corey Fisherman v. David Launderville
our precedent clearly establish that government officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has already been subdued.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
STEVENSON v. THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF MONMOUTH
by 1998, our precedent clearly established that government officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mateo v. Waltz
by 1998, our precedent clearly established that government officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Deffendall v. Indian River County Sheriff
furthermore, rule 12(g) specifically prohibits a party that has previously filed a motion to dismiss from filing a second pre-answer motion to dismiss raising an omitted defense that could have been presented in the first motion to dismiss
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Kaleta v. City of Holmes Beach
rule 12(g) specifically prohibits a party that has previously filed a motion to dismiss from filing a second pre-answer motion to dismiss raising an omitted defense that could have been presented in the first motion to dismiss
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
SLEDGE v. BOLT
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
by 1998, our precedent clearly established that government officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Azumi LLC v. Lott & Fischer, PL
rule 12(g) specifically prohibits a party that has previously filed a motion to dismiss from filing a second pre- answer motion to dismiss raising an omitted defense that could have been presented in the first motion to dismiss . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fuqua v. Davis (INMATE 2)
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
there is simply no room for a qualified immunity defense when the plaintiff alleges such a violation.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cauthen v. Blackmon
in this circuit, a defense of qualified immunity is not available in cases alleging excessive force in violation of the eighth amendment, because the use of force 'maliciously and sadistically to cause harm' is clearly established to be a violation of the constitution.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mathews v. Officer J. Wheatherbee
the use of force must stop when the need for it to maintain or restore discipline no longer exists.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Raheem Jacobs v. Cumberland County
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
by 1998, our precedent clearly established that government officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Allen Pullen v. Officer Santiago
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
there is simply no room for a qualified immunity defense when the plaintiff alleges such a violation.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gross v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
rule 12(g) specifically prohibits a party that has previously filed a motion to dismiss from filing a second pre-answer motion to dismiss raising an omitted defense that could have been presented in the first motion to dismiss . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gallashaw v. Moody
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
the law of excessive force in this country is that a prisoner cannot be subjected to gratuitous or disproportionate force that has no object but to inflict pain.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lasswell Foundation for Learning and Laughter, Inc. v. Schwartz
ecause a responsive pleading-an answer-had been filed, under the plain language of rule 12(b), a motion to dismiss would have been inappropriate.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nyreekis Jarnell Hunter v. Mike Hale
overnment officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty.
overnment officials may not use gratuitous force against a prisoner who 956 has been already subdued or, as in this case, incapacitated.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Travis S. Pierce v. Officer Short, et al.
To show subjective intent, the prisoner must show that a prison official applied force to a prisoner “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm” rather than “in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline[.]” Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)), overruled in part on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009); Williams v. Radford, 64 F.4th 1185, 1195 (11th Cir. 2023) (“The ultimate question is ‘whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ryan Frank Demon v. Unit Manager Denisha Foster; Lt. Malcolm Williams; and Cert Officer Bobby Clark
Because there is “simply no room for a qualified immunity defense when the plaintiff alleges such a violation,” the sole question is “whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.” Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1301.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Prichett v. Stanley
Here, unlike in Danley where “the allegations in the complaint [could] possibly be” construed in such a way as to encompass the initial use of force and the lingering effects thereafter, id. at 1306 (internal quotations omitted), Pritchett’s Amended Complaint is so specific and limited as to the body slam that its very wording excludes any other force.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrington v. Veritext, LLC
P. 12(a)(1); Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1305-06; Alfieri, 576 F. Supp. 3d at 1154.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilkerson v. Hicks
(2×)
After the shock allegedly “incapacitated” the plaintiff, the officers kicked, punched, and beat him. 280 F.3d at 1302.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pliteq, Inc. v. Mostafa
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See, e.g., Oldfield, 558 F.3d at 1218 n.21; Hemispherx, 553 F.3d at 1360 ; Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1306; Pardazi, 896 F.2d at 1317 ; Harris Corp., 691 F.2d at 1353 n.18.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffery Haynes, Jr. v. James Volpelletto
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Additionally, an “officer who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim of another of- ficer’s use of excessive force can be held personally liable for his nonfeasance.” Skritch, 280 F.3d at 1301.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kister v. Robbins (INMATE 1)
See Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21 ; Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8 ; Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1300-1301. 11 D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chingarev v. Rambosk
“Therefore, an officer who is present at such a beating and fails to intervene may be held liable though he administered no blow.” Id. (citing Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1302).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerald J. Carter v. J. McCullen
Cf. Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1301 (“[A]n officer who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to pro- tect the victim of another officer’s use of excessive force can be held personally liable for his nonfeasance.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Thomas
Because there is “simply no room for a qualified immunity defense when the plaintiff alleges such a violation,” the sole question is “whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment.” Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1301.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
BALLARD v. MORALES
(3×)
But they are “mere” threats rather than actual use of excessive force. unconstitutionality of Morales’s mere threat of force.2 Doc. 73 at 7 (citing Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1301).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ray v. Gadson
(5×)
See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 10 ; Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1302-03.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Buford v. Dunn
(3×)
“The use of force must stop when the need for it to maintain or restore discipline no longer exists.” Id. at 1304. “[I]t is not constitutionally permissible for officers to administer a beating as punishment for a prisoner’s past misconduct.” Id. at 1302.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilhite v. Parker
As a result, “[t]he only question . . . is whether the plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment,” Skrtich, 280 F. 3d at 1301, and the court now turns to that question.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DAUGHTRY v. PROSSER
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Cf. Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1301 (holding that “an officer who is present at the scene and who fails to take reasonable steps to protect the victim of another officer’s use of excessive force can be held personally liable for his nonfeasance”).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Stalley v. Cumbie
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
See Miles v. Jackson, 757 F. App’x 828 , 830 (11th Cir. 2018) (per curiam) (concluding there was a need for force because the inmate failed to comply with orders and evaded attempts to require compliance); Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1301-02 (accepting an inmate’s concession that using an electric shield to incapacitate him was lawful in the light of his non- compliance).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Key v. Alabama Department of Corrections CERT Team Members
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Factors relevant to this determination include the “need for the application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.” Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1300.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cole v. Esely
Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1301 (internal citation omitted).7 Therefore, as for Cole’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants, the qualified immunity analysis begins and ends with determining whether Cole has presented record evidence sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.8 In support of their Motion, Defendants submit four exhibits: a collection of incident reports related to the events of April 4, 2020 (Doc. 15-1, Exhibit A) and three disciplinary reports that were later issued to Cole (Doc. 15-2, Exhibit B; Doc. 15-3, Exhibit C; Doc. 15-4, Exhibit D).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Berry
(Defs.’ Br. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, at 11–21.) In particular, the Defendants argue at length the Plaintiffs’ Medicaid Act claims fail to satisfy the framework handed down by the Supreme Court in , 520 U.S. 329 (1997) and clarified by , 536 U.S. 273 (2002). ( at 17–21.) Second, the Defendants argue that the doctrines of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity bar the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Defendants in their after two prior motions to dismiss, both of which had omitted this defense and both of which had been denied.” 280 F.3d at 1306.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cogdell v. Fowler
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
As such, the Court draws the inference that a cell extraction “could plausibly have been thought necessary.” Skrtich, 280 F.3d at 1300-01.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
David C. Skrtich
v.
Timothy Alvin Thornton, in His Individual Capacity, Jason Patrick Griffis, in His Individual Capacity
v.
Timothy Alvin Thornton, in His Individual Capacity, Jason Patrick Griffis, in His Individual Capacity
00-15959_1.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 25, 2002.
280 F.3d 1295
David C. SKRTICH, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Timothy Alvin THORNTON, in his individual capacity, Jason Patrick Griffis, in his individual capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 00-15959.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
January 25, 2002.
Pamela Evans Langham, Langham & Langham, Ponte Vedra, FL, John F. Dickinson, Malfitano Campbell & Dickerson, Martha D. Bolton, Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendants-Appellants.
Peter M. Siegel, Florida Justice Institute, Inc., Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (No. 99-00742-CV-J-21B); Henry Lee Adams, Jr., Judge.
BY THE COURT:
[*~1307]2
On the Court's own motion, we vacate the original opinion in this case, Skrtich v. Thornton, 267 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir.2001). A revised opinion will be issued in its place.
Notes:
*
Honorable Truman M. Hobbs, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, sitting by designation