Supreme Court of the United States · 1992-02-25
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; prisoner's damages suit against three corrections officers; bench trial before Magistrate, $800 award; CA5 reversed for lack of "significant injury"; certiorari limited to that requirement; reversed; result: claimant-won; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Personal involvement / causal connection ("subjects, or causes to be subjected") | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; party: Mezo (supervisor on duty); subject: party=Mezo (supervisor on duty) Supervisor liability rests on the Magistrate's finding, left intact; the Court states no test for supervisory liability and uses the finding only to rebut the "isolated and unauthorized" argument. | supervisory/on-scene-supervisor-condoned-subordinates-force | He further testified that Mezo, the supervisor on duty, watched the beating but merely told the officers “not to have too much fun.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [1002:1134] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.Indeed, there was testimony that McMillian and Woods beat another prisoner shortly after they finished with Hudson.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [16367:16482] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.Moreover, respondents ignore the Magistrate’s finding that Lieutenant Mezo, acting as a supervisor, “expressly condoned the use of force in this instance.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [16724:16879] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf. |
| /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsUndisputed (on-duty state corrections officers); respondents' "unauthorized personal dispute" argument was framed as an Eighth Amendment "punishment" point, and the Court took no position. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Damages remedy (legacy CASE id; not a prerequisite for prospective relief) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved Award reinstated by the reversal; no damages rule stated. The opinion's "injury" discussion is about the constitutional violation, not about 1983 damages. | compensatory/small-award-for-minor-physical-injury | The Magistrate awarded Hudson damages of $800.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [1809:1855] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf. |
| /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Deprivation of Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; party: McMillian and Woods (officers who struck the prisoner); subject: party=McMillian and Woods (officers who struck the prisoner) No "significant injury" threshold for excessive-force claims; extent of injury is one factor in the malicious-and-sadistic inquiry, with a floor only for de minimis FORCE. Whether an isolated, unauthorized assault is "punishment" at all was expressly left open. | excessive-force/beating-of-restrained-prisoner-minor-injury | Assisted by Woods, McMillian then placed Hudson in handcuffs and shackles, took the prisoner out of his cell, and walked him toward the penitentiary’s “administrative lock-down” area.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [635:818] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.Hudson testified that, on the way there, McMil-lian punched Hudson in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach while Woods held the inmate in place and kicked and punched him from behind.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [819:1001] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.As a result of this episode, Hudson suffered minor bruises and swelling of his face, mouth, and lip. The blows also loosened Hudson’s teeth and cracked his partial dental plate, rendering it unusable for several months.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [1144:1363] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.The parties consented to disposition of the case before a Magistrate, who found that McMillian and Woods used force when there was no need to do so and that Mezo expressly condoned their actions.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [1604:1799] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.we hold that whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [5811:6140] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. See Whitley, supra, at 327. This is true whether or not significant injury is evident.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [10728:10945] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual” punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort “ ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [11847:12097] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.Yet the blows directed at Hudson, which caused bruises, swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate, are not de minimis for Eighth Amendment purposes. The extent of Hudson’s injuries thus provides no basis for dismissal of his § 1983 claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [12312:12561] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf. |
| /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
we hold that whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.
/us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
we hold that whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [5811:6140] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.Splits into excessive force (Whitley/Hudson malicious-and-sadistic test) and conditions of confinement / medical care (Farmer v. Brennan subjective deliberate indifference test).
interpretation
When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. See Whitley, supra, at 327. This is true whether or not significant injury is evident.
/us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. See Whitley, supra, at 327. This is true whether or not significant injury is evident.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [10728:10945] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.Splits into excessive force (Whitley/Hudson malicious-and-sadistic test) and conditions of confinement / medical care (Farmer v. Brennan subjective deliberate indifference test).
interpretation
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual” punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort “ ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’”
/us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual” punishments necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort “ ‘repugnant to the conscience of mankind.’”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_503.jsonl#/us/503/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [11847:12097] (end exclusive); SHA-256 312cc989003e278cd808b5781c7340ad0273605ed6762af44d590ac6ceae31cf.Splits into excessive force (Whitley/Hudson malicious-and-sadistic test) and conditions of confinement / medical care (Farmer v. Brennan subjective deliberate indifference test).