forceful response. Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921, 923 (5th Cir.1999). Dominguez alleged that (1) prisoners taken to outside hospitals were not usually shackled to their beds with five-point restraints and a black box as he was, (2) while he was at the hospital he was under constant security by two correctional officers, one of whom was armed, limiting the need for restraint, (3) he had been restrained for seven consecutive days, part of which time he was in a coma, before an effort was made to temper the severity of the force used; and (4) the black box was ultimately removed for the final three days of his hospital stay. 6. We have also recognized that the use of restraints for punitive purposes is violative of the Constitution. See Fulford v. King, 692 F.2d 11, 14-15 (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Dominguez’s complaint specifically alleged
holding that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the eighth amendments guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment holding that 25 years to life sentence under the california three strikes law did not violate the eighth amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment holding that petitioners 25yearstolife sentence under the california three strikes law did not violate the eighth amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment holding that the eighth amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated when handcuffs or restraints are used to subject a prisoner to great pain either deliberately as punishment or mindlessly with indifference to the prisoners humanity holding that deliberate indifference to prisoners medical needs is cruel and unusual punishment