(Reuters) - A judge should not have dismissed an Arizona state prison inmate’s lawsuit accusing police of having “beat the crap out of” him during a traffic stop because the claim appeared “too vague and conclusory,” a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived damages claims by Charles Byrd against Phoenix’s police department and two officers, who he said used excessive force and caused him to lose 70 percent of his vision after pulling him over for riding a bicycle without a light.
“Byrd’s use of a colloquial, shorthand phrase makes plain that Byrd is alleging that the officers’ use of force was unreasonably excessive,” the court said. “This conclusion is reinforced by his allegations about the resulting injuries.”
The court also revived claims that Byrd’s constitutional rights to due process and against unreasonable searches and seizures were violated. It returned the case to U.S. District Judge Neil Wake in Phoenix for further proceedings.
Phoenix’s police department had no immediate comment. Jeremy Rosen, a lawyer who argued Byrd’s appeal, in an email said he was pleased that Byrd can now “seek redress for his injuries.”
Byrd is serving a 10-year prison term after pleading guilty to a drug charge. He had represented himself in the lower court.
Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Tom Brown