Opinion ID: 2830737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excessively forceful handcuffing

Text: We have held that “unduly tight or excessively forceful handcuffing” violates the Fourth Amendment. Morrison, 583 F.3d at 401; see also Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 944 (6th Cir. 2002) (“The right to be free from ‘excessively forceful handcuffing’ is a clearly established right for qualified immunity purposes.”). Such a claim survives summary judgment when there is adequate evidence to create a factual dispute that: (1) the plaintiff complained that the cuffs were too tight; (2) the officer ignored the complaint; and (3) the plaintiff suffered some physical injury as a consequence of the cuffing. See Morrison, 583 F.3d at 401. There is evidence in the record that establishes all three prongs. Officer Lang and Mr. alLamadani both testified that Mr. al-Lamadani had complained that the cuffs were too tight. Officer Lang also admitted in deposition that he “[did not] know if [he] checked [the handcuffs], had him stand up to check them again or [] just told him they were fine.” Lang Dep., R. 25, PageID 129. This is sufficient to establish a factual dispute about whether Lang ignored Mr. alLamadani’s complaints. In Morrison, the officer testified that he had, in fact, responded to the plaintiff’s complaints by sticking his finger between the cuffs and her wrist to make sure they were not too tight. 583 F.3d at 402. However, we found there that a witness’s testimony that the officer had refused to loosen the handcuffs, as well as the plaintiff’s testimony that the officer had said he was permitted to place the handcuffs on “as tight as he wanted to and that’s how they were staying,” were sufficient to establish a factual dispute as to the second prong. Id.; cf. Burchett, 310 F.3d at 945 (granting qualified immunity on an excessively forceful handcuffing - 14 - Case No. 14-3910, Al-Lamadani v. Lang claim where the plaintiff complained of pain only once and the officer immediately offered to remove the cuffs if the plaintiff agreed to cooperate). Finally, as to the injury requirement, Mr. al-Lamadani testified that the cuffs left a red mark on his left wrist that turned blue and was gone the next day. As the district court pointed out, this injury is nearly identical to the plaintiff’s in Morrison, where we upheld a denial of summary judgment to defendant-officers on a claim of excessively forceful handcuffing, finding that “bruising and wrist marks create a genuine issue of material fact with regard to the injury prong.” 583 F.3d at 403; see also Burchett, 310 F.3d at 944 (noting that “applying handcuffs so tightly that the detainee’s hands become numb and turn blue certainly raises concerns of excessive force”). We find that viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. al-Lamadani, he has made a showing that Officer Lang violated his constitutional right to be free from excessive force while handcuffed. Next we consider whether the contours of the right were sufficiently clear such that a reasonable officer would understand that he was violating the right by ignoring Mr. alLamadani’s complaints that the handcuffs were too tight. Morrison, 583 F.3d at 400. The facts of this case are quite similar to those of Morrison, which would tend to weigh in favor of finding clearly established law here. However, the defendants argue that Morrison is distinguishable because the plaintiff there was subjected to a forty- or fifty-minute period of excessively tight handcuffing. See Morrison, 583 F.3d at 403. Citing al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. at 2083, they claim that Morrison stands only for a generalized right to be free from unduly tight handcuffing, and that “such a high level of generality” in defining clearly established constitutional rights is improper. They point to two unpublished cases where our court has found that five-minute and ten-minute periods of excessively tight handcuffing did not violate a clearly - 15 - Case No. 14-3910, Al-Lamadani v. Lang established constitutional right. See Lee v. City of Norwalk, Ohio, 529 F. App’x 778, 782 (6th Cir. 2013); Fettes v. Hendershot, 375 F. App’x 528, 533 (6th Cir. 2010). But Morrison relied on a longer line of cases in which we have held that an officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff has shown a factual dispute as to whether the plaintiff complained that the cuffs were too tight, the officer ignored the complaints, and the plaintiff was injured from the cuffs. See, e.g., Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 640–41 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding denial of qualified immunity was proper where the plaintiff repeatedly complained that the cuffs were too tight, the officers ignored him, and a doctor later instructed him to elevate and apply ice to his wrists as treatment, after which the officer reapplied the cuffs); Martin v. Heideman, 106 F.3d 1308, 1310 (6th Cir. 1997) (reversing grant of qualified immunity where plaintiff complained in the back of the police car and later in a holding cell that his hands were becoming numb and the officer ignored his complaints). These cases, combined with Morrison, clearly establish that a plaintiff can make a showing of a constitutional violation based on evidence of the plaintiff’s complaint, the officer’s refusal to respond, and the plaintiff’s injury. Here, a man was handcuffed in his own house after complying with an officer’s demands and answering his questions. A reasonable jury could find that it was unreasonable for Officer Lang not to check Mr. al-Lamadani’s handcuffs after he complained of pain while sitting on a chair in his own living room. This is particularly true where it is undisputed that Mr. alLamadani was fully compliant with all instructions and Officer Lang was not engaged in a dangerous confrontation. See Kopec v. Tate, 361 F.3d 772, 777 (3d Cir. 2004) (“[W]e point out that [the officer] faced rather benign circumstances that hardly justified his failure to respond more promptly to [the plaintiff’s] entreaties, at least to the extent to ascertain if the handcuffs - 16 - Case No. 14-3910, Al-Lamadani v. Lang were too tight. [The officer] was not, after all, in the midst of a dangerous situation involving a serious crime or armed criminals.”) As in other types of excessive-force claims, when considering whether a reasonable officer would have known that his actions violated the plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, we may take into account the context of the handcuffing and the plaintiff’s conduct leading up to the incident. See Malory v. Whiting, 489 F. App’x 78, 83 (6th Cir. 2012) (noting that “the confrontation that gave rise to Plaintiff’s [excessive-force] claim occurred against the backdrop of conduct by Plaintiff that no reasonable person could have interpreted as threatening” because the plaintiff was compliant with officers when arrested and transported to the station). We find that Mr. al-Lamadani had a clearly established right to be free of excessively forceful handcuffing. A reasonable officer in this situation would have known that he was required to investigate whether the handcuffs were, in fact, unreasonably tight. Therefore, we affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on the excessive-force claim.