Opinion ID: 4548568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Response Defendants

Text: Finally, Pulera contends that the district court erred in entering summary judgment for oﬃcers Clemens, Corso, and Newton. In his view, the oﬃcers violated his rights when they wasted seconds waiting for back-up before entering his cell, cutting him down, and calling an ambulance. No rational jury could agree with Pulera's hindsight-laden assessment of the oﬃcers’ actions. “The Fourth Amendment requires reasonableness, not immediacy.” Sallenger v. City of Springﬁeld, 630 F.3d 499, 504 (7th Cir. 2010). Even with the delays Pulera criticizes, it is undisputed that the oﬃcers sprang into action, had the pressure oﬀ his neck in less than two minutes, and summoned an ambulance in less than ﬁve, by which time Summers-Sgroi was already providing emergency treatment. Perhaps the oﬃcers could have acted faster, but the Constitution does not demand perfection. See id.; see also Florek, 649 F.3d at 600 (“[T]he Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry necessarily takes into account the suﬃciency of the steps that oﬃcers did take”). Nor does it demand that a correctional oﬃcer enter a potentially dangerous situation No. 19-2291 25 before back-up can arrive. Giles v. Tobeck, 895 F.3d 510, 514 (7th Cir. 2018) (per curiam). Under the totality of the chaotic circumstances, the oﬃcers’ swift actions were indisputably reasonable and preclude a ﬁnding that they violated Pulera’s constitutional rights.