Opinion ID: 787444
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Johnson's Claim against James

Text: 9 After defendants answered his original complaint, Johnson filed an Amended Complaint on March 23, 2000, naming additional defendants, adding state law claims, as well as claims against CO James based on another incident. The district court appointed counsel, who, in July 2001, filed a Second Amended Complaint on Johnson's behalf. According to the Second Amended Complaint, on October 16, 1999, James asked Johnson to come to his cell door to be handcuffed while another inmate was placed in the cell. Johnson complied; his hands were cuffed behind his back; an inmate was placed in the cell and that inmate's cuffs were removed. Johnson asked James to remove his cuffs, but James refused. Johnson then asked to speak to a lieutenant, and James denied his request. Johnson remained rear-cuffed for seven hours, and suffered severe pain in his shoulder and back, for which he was treated by the on-duty physician. 10 James thereafter issued a disciplinary infraction to Johnson, citing him for refusing to obey an order of any staff member. James maintained that Johnson had refused to be rear-cuffed. Johnson was found guilty of the infraction and received a 30-day loss of visiting and commissary privileges. His appeal to the facility warden was denied, but he sought review of that denial to the Northeast Regional Office, which granted his appeal and directed MDC to conduct further investigation because the evidence is contradictory. MDC, however, apparently failed to investigate, and Johnson filed another appeal with the Regional Office. The Regional Office elected to expunge the incident reports, because (1) Johnson had been moved from Brooklyn to Atlanta, (2) it had taken an extended length of time ... to correct the error, and (3) there is a lack of sufficient information at this stage of the process to support the charges. Having prevailed, Johnson filed no further appeals.