Is Defendant's handcuffing of plaintiff sufficient to constitute excessive force?

Defendant argues that the undisputed facts show that the force he used was minimal and appropriate in light of plaintiff refusing to cuff up in response to two or three orders to do so. The court disagrees. Defendant has presented no evidence that plaintiff's attempts to explain to defendant his need for specialized cuffs and a cane presented a risk of danger under the circumstances. On the other hand, plaintiff has presented at least some evidence that defendant applied the cuffs so tightly that it caused him pain and injury. See Wall v. County of Orange, 364 F.3d 1107, 1112 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that "overly tight handcuffing can constitute excessive force" under the Fourth Amendment); Candler v. Mallot, No. 2:14-cv-0363 GEB KJN, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62310, at *6-20 (E.D. Cal. May 12, 2015) (applying Wall in the Eighth Amendment context). Plaintiff has testified to this fact several times and has submitted the declaration of a fellow inmate who avers that defendant also applied cuffs too tightly to him during the same transport. Both inmates state that they complained about the overly-tight cuffs to defendant. Defendant's evidence on this point - that plaintiff's wrist bruises were either not noted or no

Page 8