Date: 12-04-2001

Case Style: William Scott Sours v. Stanley Glanz, et al.

Case Number: 01-5026

Judge: Michael R. Murphy

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: Fred Randolph Lynn, Tulsa, Okahoma

Defendant's Attorney: Gordon Edwards, Assistant District Attorney, and Tim Harris, District Attorney, Tulsa, Oklahoma

Description: Plaintiff William Sours sued several sheriff's deputies and their supervisors under 42 U.S.C. s 1983, alleging they used excessive force against him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Sours appeals from an adverse verdict entered by the district court after a bench trial. We affirm.

Sours was an inmate at the Tulsa County Jail awaiting trial on a state court criminal charge. On November 27, 1997, he and his cellmates were removed from their cell for what officers said was a search for jail contraband. On returning to his cell, Sours claimed that some of his legal papers were missing; he accused the deputy sheriffs who conducted the search of taking them. As Sours became increasingly upset, several deputies were dispatched to remove him from his cell. The parties' factual accounts diverge dramatically at this point.

Sours claims that as he was led, in handcuffs, from his cell at least two deputies attacked him from behind. He says they rammed his head into the cell bars, smashing his glasses and bruising his face. According to his account, the deputies then dragged him along a corridor and threw him to the ground, one using his knee to pin Sours's head against the concrete floor. The deputies deny the charge of an unprovoked attack. They claim instead that Sours refused to cooperate when asked to come out of his cell by going limp and refusing to walk on his own. This passive resistance required three deputies to handcuff and escort him out of the cell. In the course of moving him, they say, the deputies twice fell to the floor, bringing Sours with them and undoubtedly, though unintentionally, causing him minor injuries.

After a one day bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants. It found that the force used to subdue Sours was reasonable in view of his resistance to the deputies' lawful commands and therefore did not violate the Eighth Amendment. Additionally, it found no basis for Sours's failure-to- train or supervisor liability claims.

Outcome: Affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Reported by Kent Morlan