context: Taking the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the absence of any policy regarding whether the use of pepper spray is appropriate on an individual who is fully restrained created an "obvious" constitutional violation.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he Eighth Amendment violation is obvious" when prisoner was subdued then handcuffed to hitching post for seven hours.
citation_a.sentence: See Hope, 536 U.S. at 738, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (“[T]he Eighth Amendment violation is obvious” when prisoner was subdued then handcuffed to hitching post for seven hours.); see also Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir.2005) (“[O]ne could draw a reasonable inference” that continued use of force after detainee was subdued or restrained “was for the very purpose of causing harm: excessive force.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 422 F.3d 1265, 1272
citation_b.parenthetical: "[O]ne could draw a reasonable inference" that continued use of force after detainee was subdued or restrained "was for the very purpose of causing harm: excessive force."
citation_b.sentence: See Hope, 536 U.S. at 738, 122 S.Ct. 2508 (“[T]he Eighth Amendment violation is obvious” when prisoner was subdued then handcuffed to hitching post for seven hours.); see also Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir.2005) (“[O]ne could draw a reasonable inference” that continued use of force after detainee was subdued or restrained “was for the very purpose of causing harm: excessive force.”).