This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
24
claim that Briggs was grossly negligent in refusing to loosen
Plaintiff‘s handcuffs in that: (1) Plaintiff is 67 years old;
(2) there are no facts suggesting that Plaintiff re sisted arrest
or attempted to escape; (3) there are no aggravatin g facts
regarding Plaintiff‘s dangerousness; (4) Plaintiff repeatedly
complained to Briggs of severe pain and informed hi m that her
handcuffs were so tight that she was losing feeling in her hand
and fingers; and (5) Briggs left Plaintiff in the e xcessively
tight handcuffs for over thirty minutes after she h ad been
secured in a holding cell at the police station. A ssuming that
the above facts are true, as the Court must at this stage in the
proceedings, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged tha t Officer
Briggs demonstrated an ―utter disregard of prudence ‖ in failing
to even check on Plaintiff‘s well -being after she was secured in
a cell and repeatedly pleaded for relief from sever e pain.
Accordingly, the Court grants Briggs‘ motion to dismiss that
portion of Count Six involving his decision to arre st Plaintiff,
and denies Briggs‘ motion to dismiss that portion o f Count Six
involving his refusal to loosen Plaintiff‘s handcuff s.
D. Count Seven
In Count Seven of the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim
seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count Seven
appears to be directed at Gayle and Briggs, and it expressly
cites to § 1983. Count One does not expressly refe rence § 1983; Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)