Nicholas Roberson v. James Torres

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “using a chemical agent in an initial attempt to wake a sleeping prisoner, without apparent necessity and in the absence of mitigating circumstances, violates clearly established law” under the Eighth Amendment
• holding that sergeant’s use of a chemical agent on sleeping prisoner was excessive because “it was not necessary in order to restore order and since ‘less intrusive means’ could have been used” to wake prisoner
• holding that sergeant’s use of a chemical agent on sleeping prisoner was excessive because “it was not necessary in order to restore order and since ‘less intrusive means’ could have been used” to wake prisoner
• holding that sergeant’s use of a chemical agent on sleeping prisoner was excessive because “it was not necessary in order to restore order and since ‘less intrusive means’ could have been used” to wake prisoner
• noting that the Sixth Circuit has concluded in numerous cases that “the use of . . . chemical agents against recalcitrant prisoners” did not violate the Eighth Amendment (citing Caldwell v. Moore, 968 F.2d 595, 600 (6th Cir. 1992) (collecting cases)
• noting the Sixth Circuit has concluded “in numerous cases” that “the use of chemical agents against recalcitrant prisoners did not violate the Eighth Amendment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).