Avina v. Bohlen

Dist. Ct. erred in granting one defendant-police officer’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff Section 1983 action alleging that said defendant used excessive force when he broke plaintiff’s upper arm during process of handcuffing him following plaintiff’s arrest. While Dist. Ct. found that said officer could not have used excessive force where he was merely raising arm behind plaintiff’s back when arm broke, Ct. of Appeals found that material question regarding alleged use of excessive force existed so as to preclude summary judgment, where: (1) manner in which officer maneuvered plaintiff’s arm caused plaintiff’s arm to break; and (2) any force required to break plaintiff’s arm cannot be viewed as objectively reasonable, where plaintiff also alleged that he did not resist or attempt to flee at time of his arrest. Dist. Ct., though, did not err in granting summary judgment for different defendant-officer, where record showed that said officer had no physical contact with plaintiff at time his arm broke.