Berry v. New York City Department of Correction, 622 F. App'x 10

Berry, pro se, sued NYC Department of Correction and Officers Beckwith and Castro under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment failure to protect and excessive force.
Incident occurred August 30, 2012 at Rikers Island in Administrative Segregation MHAUII Punitive Box during the 7 a.m.–3 p.m. shift, when a barber shop officer restrained Berry and pepper spray was used.
District court granted summary judgment to defendants, finding no deliberate indifference or excessive force and applying qualified immunity.
Berry appealed, challenging the district court’s summary judgment ruling.
The Second Circuit reviews de novo to determine if there are genuine disputes of material fact and whether defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Court affirms the district court’s decision, adopting its reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to protect claim viability	Berry asserts deliberate indifference to substantial risk.	Beckwith/Castro contend no substantial risk or evidence of indifference.	No genuine dispute; district court proper.
Excessive force by pepper spray	Beckwith's pepper spray use was excessive.	Use of pepper spray was not excessive under standards.	No genuine dispute; Beckwith entitled to qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity	Defendants violated clearly established rights.	Rights not clearly established or violated; qualified immunity applies.	Qualified immunity bars § 1983 claims; affirmed.

Hayes v. New York City Dep’t of Corrs., 84 F.3d 614 (2d Cir. 1996) (deliberate indifference standard for failure to protect)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1992) (excessive force framework)
Sims v. Artuz, 230 F.3d 14 (2d Cir. 2000) (excessive force and related standards)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; rational trier of fact)