Norton v. City of Marietta

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that pepper spray is objectively harmful when sprayed for an excessive amount of time or if the defendant does not “adequately irrigate” a prisoner afterwards
• explaining that “[g]iven the dearth of evidence in the record, the district court could not have reached these conclusions unless it chose to believe defendants over plaintiff,” and “the district court’s grant of summary judgment” was therefore improper
• collecting cases concluding that plaintiff who brings action regarding prison conditions after his release does not have to satisfy PLRA’s exhaustion requirement
• affirming the district court's denial of a motion to compel filed “well after the close of discovery and only two days before the pre-trial conference”
• disparaging remarks made to plaintiff by police officer do not rise to the level of an 8th Amendment claim
• dismissing claim in which prison guards were alleged to have injured prisoner by grabbing him around his neck and twisting it because the guards’ actions were not objectively harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).