42 USC § 1983; Eighth Amendment; Excessive force; Throwing an inmate to the ground; Cordell v McKinney; Johnson v Sootsman; Hudson v McMillian; Claim that defendant ignored plaintiff’s medical needs

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the district court properly denied defendant-corrections officer (Voit) qualified immunity on plaintiff-inmate’s (Erickson) excessive force claim, concluding “a reasonable jury could find that Voit gratuitously assaulted” Erickson. But it found that Erickson did not show “that Voit knew of and consciously disregarded his need for medical treatment.” Erickson was an inmate in defendant-county’s jail when the incident occurred. After Erickson repeatedly hit and kicked his cell door, among other things, Voit returned to the cell, handcuffed him, and walked him to a holding cell. Voit “threw the still-handcuffed Erickson to the ground by grabbing his right arm and swinging him around in a circular motion. Erickson hit the ground on his knees. Voit immediately dropped on top of (the much smaller) Erickson and started pulling him by the neck and wrist to get him to lie flat. Voit quickly got [him] on his side, but Erickson was still not on his stomach. So Voit began to pull him by the handcuffed arms, which caused Erickson’s body to rub back and forth against the floor for another ten seconds.” Voit then placed his knee on Erickson’s back below his neck and kept it there for the approximately 40 seconds “it took him to uncuff Erickson’s hands. [He] then took his knee off Erickson’s back and” left the cell. The next day, Erickson told another deputy that he needed medical care. He was taken to the hospital and was diagnosed with back contusions and a fractured upper rib. Voit was charged with assault and battery. He was acquitted and retired. Erickson sued under § 1983 for excessive force and failure to provide medical care. The district court denied Voit qualified immunity on both claims. The court concluded “a jury could find that Voit threw Erickson down and held him to the ground for no reason other than his malicious intent to harm Erickson because of his disrespectful behavior.” The record showed that Erickson had calmed down, acknowledged his “childish” behavior, and complied with Voit’s order to exit the cell. He also “permitted Voit to handcuff him, and walked to the holding cell without resistance.” A jury could find that he did not pose a serious threat, and that the amount of force used was excessive. And the fact that “Voit actually harmed Erickson could further lead a reasonable jury to conclude that he intended to harm him.” The court found that its “holding in Cordell clearly established an Eighth Amendment violation here.” Thus, it affirmed the district court’s ruling on the excessive force claim. But it reversed as to the deliberate indifference to medical needs claim, noting Erickson “showed no visible signs of injury at” the time of the incident. Remanded.