Fifth Circuit
Simpson v. Hines, 903 F.2d 400, 403 (5th Cir. 1990) (ruling that any reasonable officer would have known that the force exerted – placing an inmate in a neckhold and putting strong pressure on his chest – was excessive and thus constitutionally deficient, and concluding that the record was sufficient to warrant a trial of all nine officers on plaintiffs’ claim of denial of medical care).
Eighth Circuit
Stahlmann v. Minn. Dep’t of Corrs., 22-cv-3058 (ECT/DTS), at *19 (D. Minn. Aug. 4, 2023) (“That this right extends to unreasonable delays in providing treatment as well as the outright denial of treatment is also well established. Allard v. Baldwin, 779 F.3d 768, 772 (8th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff’s right to adequate medical care was well established at the time of the alleged deprivations.”).
Leonard v. St. Charles Cnty. Police Dep’t, No. 21-3755, at *10 (8th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023) (“The clearly established principle from Dadd is that a complete failure to treat an extremely painful (or other serious) condition displays a reckless indifference to a serious medical need.”).
Allen v. Piepho, 21-cv-02689 (SRN/ECW), at *16 (D. Minn. Jan. 23, 2023) (stating that “it is also clearly established that ‘[w]hen an official denies a person treatment that has been ordered or medication that has been prescribed, constitutional liability may follow'”).
Patrick v. Lewis, 397 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1142 (D. Minn. 2005) (stating that “the right of a detainee to medical care when it is known that failing to provide care would put the detainee at risk of serious harm is a clearly established right”).