| |
| | Appellate Law & Practice: CA2 (11.29.05) |
 | | Under those practices, the use of four-point restraints was far more limited than what is alleged to have occurred here and the unreasonable use of force was prohibited. |
 | | Although Gomez, unlike Armstrong, was informed that Ziemba had been placed in restraints, there is no evidence from which a reasonable juror could infer that this notification occurred at any point other than early in the twenty-two-hour period, at which time Gomez would have had no reason to question the need for the restraint. |
 | | However, when they did eventually come to check on plaintiffs’ medical condition, they ignored, according to plaintiff, evidence that he had suffered physical injury as well as his own statements to them that he was seriously injured and needed medical attention. |
| appellate.typepad.com /appellate/2005/11/ca2_112905.html (865 words) |
|