United States District Court, D. Colorado
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Defendants except Donald Gibson seek dismissal of this case.
Plaintiff's claims primarily relate to Defendants'
use of four-point restraints and involuntary administration
of medicine. I find that the statute of limitations bars
Plaintiff's first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth
claims. Additionally, Plaintiff's second claim fails to
assert an Eighth Amendment violation. Accordingly, I grant
Defendants' motion and dismiss all of Plaintiff's
claims other than those against Mr. Gibson.
as true all factual allegations in the Complaint pursuant to
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
is incarcerated at the San Carlos Correctional Facility
(“SCCF”) in the Colorado Department of
Corrections (“CDOC”). Compl., ECF No. 1. On July
30, 2015, Plaintiff sprayed water out of his shower onto the
floor of the unit. Id. ¶ 79. SCCF officials
removed him from the shower and placed him in restraints.
Id. ¶ 80. Plaintiff then took ten milligrams of
Zyprexa at the request of SCCF staff. Id.
¶¶ 80-81. Defendant Larimore accused Plaintiff of
having “cheeked” his medication. Id.
¶ 82. As a result, a nurse administered an intramuscular
injection of Halidol. Id. ¶ 83. This caused
Plaintiff to suffer radial nerve pain and anxiety.
Id. ¶ 84.
31, 2015, Plaintiff was placed on a mental health watch
(“MHW”) and put in restraints. Id.
¶ 1. When Plaintiff complained that the restraints were
too tight, various nurses and guards drafted false reports
stating that he was being aggressive. Id.
¶¶ 4-5. As a result, Defendants placed Plaintiff on
a table in “four-point restraints” from August 2,
2015 through August 4, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 5-6.
Plaintiff was placed in these restraints pursuant to a CDOC
policy that requires staff to review the need for restraints
after four hours and then again every twenty-four hours.
Id. ¶¶ 30-33. However, in practice, SCCF
medical staff assessed inmates only after twenty-four hours.
Id. ¶ 33. Defendant Gibson removed the
restraints after Plaintiff promised he would stop filing
lawsuits and grievances. Id. ¶ 60.
Plaintiff initiated this case on March 31, 2017, see
ECF No. 1, he did not assert claims against Defendants until
he filed his Amended Complaint on August 14, 2017. Am.
Compl., ECF No. 5. Plaintiff deposited his Amended Complaint
in the SCCF mail system on August 8, 2017, id. at
25, which is relevant to the applicability of the statute of
limitations. Plaintiff pleads six causes of action in his
Amended Complaint. First, he alleges Defendants Blaher,
Galkowski, Larimore, Valdez, Johnson, and Pacheco violated
the Fourteenth Amendment by filing false reports to keep him
on a four-point restraint table from August 2 through August
4, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff's
second claim asserts the CDOC policy permitting use of
four-point restraints violates the Eighth Amendment.
Id. ¶¶ 21-45. In his third cause of
action, Plaintiff pleads an Eighth Amendment claim against
Defendants Krakow and Gibson for leaving him in restraints
from July 31 through August 4, 2015. Id.
¶¶ 51-70. Plaintiff's fourth claim contends
Defendants Krakow and Gibson placed him in restraints as
retaliation for lawsuits he filed. Id. ¶¶
72-78. Claim five alleges Defendants Larimore and Gibson
violated the Eighth Amendment by force medicating Plaintiff
on July 30, 2015. Id. ¶¶ 79-88. Lastly,
Plaintiff's sixth claim contends Defendants Larimore and
Gibson force medicated him as retaliation for protected legal
activity. Id. ¶¶ 86-88.
Raemisch, Krakow, Blaher, Johnson, Pacheco, Galkowski,
Larimore, and Valdez responded to the Amended Complaint by
filing the present Motion to Dismiss on February 15, 2018.
ECF No. 32. Defendants contend the two-year statute of
limitations bars Plaintiff's first, third, fourth, fifth,
and sixth claims. Mot. to Dismiss 4-6. Additionally,
Defendants seek dismissal of Plaintiff's second claim,
arguing that the four-point restraint policy does not
constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at
a May 15, 2017 Status Conference, Plaintiff stated that he
wished to administratively close the case while he pursued an
injunction against CDOC officials for confiscating his legal
materials. See ECF No. 38. I granted Plaintiff's
request and instructed him to reopen the case by filing a
response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. Id.
8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Lift Stay and a response
to Defendants' motion. Mot. to Lift Stay, ECF No. 45;
Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 42. I granted
Plaintiff's motion and permitted Defendant until June 25,
2018 to file a reply. ECF No. 46. In his response brief,
Plaintiff asks me to equitably toll the statute of
limitations. Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss 1. According to
Plaintiff, he was prevented from timely finishing his
complaint “due to being moved to another prison and
deprived of his papers in the process until August 6,
2017.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff does not address
the merits of his claims. The parties filed their magistrate
judge consent forms on June 10 and June 11, 2018, but
Defendants did not submit a reply brief.