IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-30424

Summary Calendar

MONDRELL WILSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LUKE RHEAMS, Captain; N. BURL CAIN, Warden; LESLIE DUPONT,

Assistant Warden of Security,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:11-CV-289

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Mondrell Wilson, Louisiana prisoner # 378506, seeks leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. By moving for IFP, Wilson is challenging the

district court’s certification that IFP status should not be granted on appeal

because his appeal from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit is not taken

in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 11, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 12-30424 Document: 00512016450 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/11/2012
No. 12-30424

Wilson argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint for

failure to state a claim. He contends that the district court applied an

unreasonable standard to his excessive force claim. He asserts that without

provocation, Captain Rheams choked him to near unconsciousness and flung him

to the ground out of his wheelchair. He argues that the district court erred in

its opinion that an excessive force claim must be proven by a certain amount of

actual physical injuries.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6). In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205

(5th Cir.2007); FED.R.CIV.PROC. 12(b)(6). We must accept all well-pleaded facts

as true and must view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In re

Katrina, 495 F.3d at 205.

When prison officials stand accused of using excessive force in violation of

the Eighth Amendment, “the core judicial inquiry is . . . whether force was

applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and

sadistically to cause harm.” Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). In

Hudson, the Supreme Court held that “the use of excessive physical force against

a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment when the inmate does

not suffer serious injury,” rejecting this court’s earlier requirement of

“significant injury” to establish a claim of excessive force. Hudson, 503 U.S. at

4. The Supreme Court has also rejected a requirement that a prisoner show

more than a “de minimis” injury to establish a claim of excessive force because

that approach is at odds with its direction in Hudson to “decide excessive force

claims based on the nature of the force rather than the extent of the injury.” 

Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1177 (2010).

In Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699, 703-04, clarified on reh’g, 186 F.3d

633, 634 (5th Cir. 1999), an individual detained by police officers brought an

excessive force claim against an officer who allegedly choked him twice, once in

2

Case: 12-30424 Document: 00512016450 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/11/2012
No. 12-30424

the course of a search of the plaintiff’s mouth and once shortly thereafter in

response to his complaining about the first choking. The plaintiff’s alleged

injuries from each choking were identical: “fleeting dizziness, temporary loss of

breath and coughing.” Id. at 704. Evaluating each instance separately, we

determined that the injuries resulting from the first choking were not

constitutionally cognizable because they occurred during a search of the

plaintiff’s mouth for drugs. Id. With respect to the second choking, however, the

identical injuries were actionable, because the second choking “was motivated

entirely by malice” and because the officer was not “legitimately exercising force

in the performance of his duties as an officer.” Id.

Wilson has alleged that with no provocation, Rheams maliciously applied

unnecessary force to him by choking him, resulting in near unconsciousness, and

by flinging him out of his wheelchair to the floor. For purposes of Rule 12(b)(6),

accepting Wilson’s allegations as true, these allegations are sufficient to state a

claim of excessive use of force based on the “nature of the force rather than the

extent of the injury.” Wilkins, 130 S. Ct. at 1177; Williams, 180 F.3d at 703-04.

The district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a

claim of excessive use of force. Wilson’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on

appeal is GRANTED. Because further briefing is not required, the district

court’s judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further

proceedings.

3

Case: 12-30424 Document: 00512016450 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/11/2012