OR · 42usc1983:deprivation.eighth-amendment
Splits into excessive force (Whitley/Hudson malicious-and-sadistic test) and conditions of confinement / medical care (Farmer v. Brennan subjective deliberate indifference test).
Exact element source
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [306:402] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| excessive-force/beating-of-restrained-prisoner-minor-injury | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/503/0001-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1992 — satisfied | |
| failure-to-protect/inmate-left-unsecured-with-unrestrained-inmate-in-understaffed-unit | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 — applied/lower-court | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Deprivation of Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: Detention Officer Thomas; subject: party=Detention Officer Thomas Court speaks of "any violation of the Eighth Amendment she may have suffered" and decides only the second prong; yet it finds as undisputed that Thomas lacked subjective knowledge of the risk, the core of deliberate indifference. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/813/0938-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2015 | Deprivation of Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: triable; party: Detention Officer Johnson; Sheriff Glanz; subject: party=Detention Officer Johnson; Sheriff Glanz The DISTRICT COURT's ruling, narrated but not reviewed (both appeals dismissed). As to Johnson: she unlocked the holding-cell door in view of an unrestrained male inmate, left without re-locking, securing him, or checking on the shackled plaintiff. As to Glanz: a jury could infer notice from prior staff-on-inmate sexual assaults in the understaffed, unsurveilled medical unit, and no remedial response. The one fact line is plaintiff's version as this court restates it (moved in v1 from the jurisdiction block, where it showed that Johnson's appeal disputed the facts); v0 did not quote the block-quoted district-court findings. | failure-to-protect/inmate-left-unsecured-with-unrestrained-inmate-in-understaffed-unit | Ms. Henderson asserted in her summary judgment briefing and asserts on appeal that DO Johnson knew the door to the tub room was unlocked when she left the medical unit hallway. DO Johnson’s argument does not accept as true Ms. Henderson’s version of this fact.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_813.jsonl#/f3d/813/0938-01; Unicode character offsets [22254:22514] (end exclusive); SHA-256 716c6c7b3cb2dd26448ea815f36cfccade2304aa36f8155043a90af21345fb40. |
| /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. |
Court interpretations
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).
interpretation
The Court has long held that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent to the deprivation of a prisoner’s basic needs, that is, when they “kno[w] of and disregar[d] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.
The Court has long held that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when they are deliberately indifferent to the deprivation of a prisoner’s basic needs, that is, when they “kno[w] of and disregar[d] an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/clus_cl.jsonl#/cl/10881677; Unicode character offsets [7348:7601] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5fee11e8c3cb547879ec5596eefbeac05a81201647444d51d8f4498423f41866.Splits into excessive force (Whitley/Hudson malicious-and-sadistic test) and conditions of confinement / medical care (Farmer v. Brennan subjective deliberate indifference test).
not-required
Proof of "significant injury" in an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim (Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992))
No source quotation recorded.