Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chrisco v. Goodrick

United States District Court, D. Colorado

June 21, 2018

LUKE IRVIN CHRISCO, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN R. GOODRICK, ANTHONY KNIGHT, and JOHN DOES 1-2, Defendants.

          RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          Michael E. Hegarty United States Magistrate Judge.

         Defendants John R. Goodrick and Anthony Knight (“Defendants”) move for summary judgment on all claims asserted against them. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants' motion. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate disputed issues of fact regarding his constitutional claims, and Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. I recommend granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.

         BACKGROUND

         I. Factual Background

         The evidence Defendants submitted reveals the following facts viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, who is the non-moving party in this matter.

         1. On January 17, 2015, Plaintiff was incarcerated at the Boulder County Jail (“Jail”) awaiting sentencing on a probation violation. ECF No. 66-1, at 24.

         2. During the evening of January 17, Plaintiff began kicking and hitting his shoes against his cell door. He also periodically shouted obscenities. BCSO-00824, ECF No. 67; BCSO-00825, ECF No. 67; ECF No. 66-1, at 9.

         3. Although Jail staff repeatedly asked him to stop, Plaintiff continued his behavior for approximately five hours. ECF No. 66-1, at 9.

         4. Defendants eventually decided Plaintiff would cease his behavior only if they placed him in a restraint chair. Aff. of John R. Goodrick ¶ 16, ECF No. 66-1.

         5. When Defendants and a third deputy entered Plaintiff's cell, Plaintiff jumped toward Mr. Goodrick. ECF No. 66-1, at 9.

         6. Although Mr. Goodrick immediately pushed him away, Plaintiff continued to resist Defendants' efforts to restrain him. Id.

         7. Mr. Goodrick then attempted an “infra orbital pressure point control tactic.” Id.

         8. While performing this move, one of Mr. Goodrick's fingers entered Plaintiff's nostril, causing it to bleed. Id. at 10.

         9. Plaintiff continued to resist Defendants' efforts until Mr. Goodrick deployed his taser. At that point, Defendants were able to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.