Search
Close this search box.

Handcuffing did not constitute excessive force

Facts

(If you are new to 1983 actions, click here for help)

Andrew Trevino sought damages for injuries he alleged resulted from Detective Price’s use of excessive force in handcuffing him on November 9, 2021. (no other facts provided)

Analysis

The evidence before the district court, including video evidence of Trevino’s handcuffing and re-cuffing with two pairs of handcuffs for his comfort, blatantly contradicts and utterly discredits Trevino’s § 1983 allegation that Detective Price used excessive force in handcuffing him. Indeed, the video evidence, which is consistent with the affidavits submitted, unambiguously shows that it was a uniformed patrol officer—and not Detective Price—who handcuffed Trevino. None of the evidence shows the patrol officer using force, much less excessive force, or engaging in any malicious conduct when handcuffing, or re-cuffing, Trevino. See Glenn (concluding that officer’s handcuffing of plaintiff, which caused the plaintiff’s hand to become swollen, did not amount to excessive force because the plaintiff did not allege that the officer acted maliciously, and handcuffing too tightly, without more, does not amount to excessive force).

To the contrary, the video evidence clearly shows that the interaction between Trevino and the officer was calm and cordial and that Trevino was handled courteously and without force by Detective Price. Because the competent summary judgment evidence does not show a genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding whether Detective Price handcuffed Trevino or violated Trevino’s constitutional right by using excessive force, summary judgment was proper. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/22/22-51032.0.pdf