McMillian v. Wake County Sheriff's Department, 399 F. App'x 824

McMillian, a pretrial detainee, sues Wake County correctional officers Harris, Baldwin, and Barrera under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force.
District court granted summary judgment on qualified immunity and dismissed the action.
McMillian alleges the assault occurred after he was handcuffed during a cell transfer, including a choke hold, being knocked to the ground, and head injuries from knee strikes.
Defendants submitted affidavits asserting force was needed to restore order; they claimed no kicking or punching, while McMillian alleged video evidence would prove his version.
Magistrate and district courts denied discovery into surveillance videos; the court relied on the qualified-immunity record to grant summary judgment.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacates the summary judgment order, remands for production of videotape/photographs, and suggests counsel appointment on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether qualified immunity was properly decided given post-handcuff use of force	McMillian contends force after cuffing was not justified to restore order.	Defendants argue force was necessary to restore discipline and was within qualified immunity.	Qualified-immunity grant vacated; genuine factual disputes remain.
Whether denial of discovery into surveillance footage prejudiced McMillian	Video evidence could corroborate or contradict McMillian’s version and is essential to the § 1983 claim.	Discovery irrelevant to the qualified-immunity issue.	District court abused discretion; denial prejudiced McMillian; remanded for production.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying appointment of counsel	McMillian, though pro se, has colorable claims and lacks capacity to fully present them.	No right to appointed counsel in § 1983 actions; denial appropriate absent abuse.	No abuse; district court correctly denied appointment; but counsel should be considered on remand.

Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (established two-step qualified-immunity inquiry (summary judgment standard))
Orem v. Rephann, 523 F.3d 442 (4th Cir. 2008) (analysis of force against arrestee under due process)
Riley v. Dorton, 115 F.3d 1159 (4th Cir. 1997) (pretrial detainee excessive-force standard (en banc) prior to Wilkins v. Gaddy)
Taylor v. McDuffie, 155 F.3d 479 (4th Cir. 1998) (whether force was used in good faith to maintain discipline)
Young v. Prince George’s County, 355 F.3d 751 (4th Cir. 2004) (excessive-force claim—handcuffed arrestee case; reasonableness of officer's conduct)
Jones v. Buchanan, 325 F.3d 520 (4th Cir. 2003) (handcuffing relevance to reasonableness of conduct; factual disputes possible)
Ingle ex rel. Estate of Ingle v. Yelton, 439 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2006) (video evidence as probative to constitutional violation; need for discovery)