Ronald Weeden v. Timothy Bowden, et al.

Summary

This merit review order addresses a pro se prisoner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising from alleged excessive force, denial of post-use-of-force sanitation, and retaliatory transfer. The court allowed an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Timothy Bowden and an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Pratt and McDowell, dismissed claims against Nurse and Dr. Paul without prejudice, and denied the motion for appointed counsel with leave to renew.

Holdings

1. Allegations that Bowden hurt Weeden's wrist and hands while removing his handcuffs and sprayed him twice in the face while he was cuffed to his cell door were sufficient to proceed on an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim.
2. Allegations that Pratt and McDowell denied Weeden a shower to remove mace and refused to clean his cell after he was sprayed were sufficient to proceed on an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim.
3. Weeden's conclusory allegation that Nurse and Dr. Paul retaliated against him by transferring him to Menard failed to state a constitutional claim because he did not allege the reason for the retaliation, why the transfer was retaliatory, or how either defendant was personally involved.
4. Weeden was not entitled to appointed counsel because he did not demonstrate a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel on his own, although the motion was denied with leave to renew.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Weeden adequately pleaded an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim against Bowden.
2. Whether Weeden adequately pleaded an Eighth Amendment conditions-of-confinement claim against Pratt and McDowell.
3. Whether Weeden adequately pleaded a constitutional retaliation claim against Nurse and Dr. Paul.
4. Whether Weeden demonstrated a reasonable attempt to obtain counsel sufficient to satisfy the first prong of the standard for appointment of counsel in civil litigation.

Disposition

other