Jordan v. Masterson, 3:10-cv-01293

Jordan, Sr., proceeding pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Waterbury, CT police officers and U.S. Marshals Task Force members for alleged denial of medical care and excessive force during an April 16, 2008 arrest.
Waterbury defendants moved for summary judgment on denial of medical care; McKnight, Distefano, and Brown moved on excessive force.
Perimeter officers secured the scene; Deely, Ponzillo, and Rivera (with federal task force) entered the residence; McKnight, Distefano, and Brown allegedly did not enter, and plaintiff claims excessive force occurred in a bedroom.
Plaintiff treated at St. Mary’s Hospital the morning after arrest; imaging was negative and injuries described as minor; plaintiff alleges serious medical need and ongoing effects.
Court applied summary judgment standard: movant must show no genuine issues of material fact; evidence viewed in plaintiff’s favor for any factual ambiguities.
Court granted partial summary judgment: excessive force claims against McKnight, Distefano, and Brown dismissed; denial of medical care claims as to Waterbury defendants dismissed for lack of serious medical need; case to proceed on excessive force claim against federal defendants and Waterbury defendants Deely, Ponzillo, and Rivera; McKnight, Distefano, Brown terminated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Excessive force liability for McKnight, Distefano, Brown	McKnight/Distefano/Brown were involved or present during alleged force	They did not enter the residence and did not participate in force; no failure to intervene	Granted; no evidence they used or failed to prevent force
Denial of medical care liability	Defendants were deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs	No serious medical need; actions within medical training scope	Granted; Waterbury defendants not liable for denial of medical care
Personal involvement standard under §1983	All Waterbury officers allegedly involved or responsible	Only those present or directly involved could be liable	Court limited liability to those with involvement; granted as to listed MC/Distefano/Brown
Serious medical need standard applied to bruises/lacerations	Bruises and lacerations constitute serious medical need	Negative tests and minor injuries do not establish serious need	Bruises and lacerations not a serious medical need under standard; no deliberate indifference
Scope of remaining claims after partial grant	Excessive force claims against all defendants	Excessive force claims limited to those found liable or involved	Case proceeds on excessive force claims against federal defendants and Waterbury Deely, Ponzillo, Rivera; others terminated.

City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hosp., 463 U.S. 239 (Supreme Court 1983) (due process requires medical care for injured during apprehension; medical indifference standard guides analysis)
Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard for medical needs; two-part test)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Supreme Court 1976) (establishes medical care obligations in Eighth Amendment context)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Supreme Court 1994) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of and disregard for substantial risk of harm)
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court 1989) (reasonableness standard for use of force during searches/arrests)
Dawes v. Coughlin, 159 F.3d 1346 (2d Cir. 1998) (negative medical tests can negate serious medical need for Eighth Amendment)
Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698 (2d Cir. 1998) (recognizes potential liability if deliberate disregard of serious injury)