Eileen M. Degraff v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the plaintiff was handcuffed at the time she was lifted off the ground and that the record was devoid of “clues as to why [the officers] felt it necessary” to use that force
• noting force has been considered appropriate with an “evasive suspect,” or “escaping prisoner” and when officers fear for their safety
• explaining that, in “cases in which [the D.C. Circuit has] found the use of significant force appropriate,” the officers were “faced with an evasive suspect,” “an escaping prisoner,” or there was “evidence that [the officers] feared for their safety”
• granting summary judgment in favor of defendants because “rough treatment” did not amount to excessive force
• relying on arrestee’s admission at a deposition that “she had not suffered any physical injury” to limit her claim to “mental and emotional injuries”
• reversing district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of district and officers on claims that these defendants violated the Fourth Amendment, concluding that insufficient facts were in the record to determine whether officers were entitled to qualified immunity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).