# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 0- 38 63

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Arth ur E. Tay lo r, Jr

.

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Dav e Dor m ire , in hi s i nd iv id ua l an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty; W al te r Fri es en , 3rd Sh ift Serg ean t, i n h is in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty; Ch ad Hov is , 2n d S hi ft S erg ean t,

in hi s i nd iv id ua l an d o ffi ci al cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 9, 2 01 2
Fil ed : Se pt em

be r 4, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, and BENTON, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
BENTON, Circu it Ju dg e.

Arth ur E. Tay lo r, Jr . su ed Mi ss ou ri p ris on off ic ia ls un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3

fo r refu si ng to feed hi m

for sev eral da y s wh il e h e was res tra in ed . A j ur y ret ur ne d

a v erd ic t fo r th e p ris on off ic ia ls , whi ch Tay lo r ap pe al s. J ur is di ct io n b ei ng pro pe r

un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1, t hi s co ur t re ve rs es an d re m an ds

.I.

Tay lo r was a pr is on er at t h e Je ffer so n Ci ty Co rrec ti on al Cen te r, a m ax im um

se cu rit y pr is on

. Acco rd in g t o D e p a r tm en t of Co rrec ti on s Po li cy , if a pr is on er
be co m es co nc ern ed ab ou t po te nt ia l vi ol en ce with in th e cel l, a p ris on er m ay de cl are

th e cel lm at e an “ en em

y ” an d be rem ov ed fro m th e cel l. Pri so n of fic ia ls th en pl ace th e

rem ov ed pr is on er on a res tra in t be nc h un ti l a co m pa ti bl e cel lm at e is fo un d, an

in di vi du al cel l be co m es av ai la bl e, or th e pr is on er de ci de s to ret ur n to th e or ig in al cel l.

Po li cy pr ov id es th at pr is on ers can no t be fed un le ss th ey are in a cel l. The Po li cy do es

al lo w ba th ro om br eak s an d sm al l am ou nt s o f wate r an d al so ha s an ex cep ti on fo r

m ed ic al ne ces si ty.

Afte r an al le ge d arg um en t on th e ev en in g of Fri da y , Sep te m be r 9, 20 05

, Tay lo r
de cl ared hi s cel lm at e an en em y an d was rem ov ed fro m th e c e l l

. P r i s on of fic ia ls

s h ack le d hi m to a m et al res tra in t be nc h. Sev eral ot he r pr is on ers us ed t h e s a me

pr oc ed ur e si m

ul ta ne ou sl y , an d st il l ot he rs were flo od in g th ei r cel ls by ta m pe rin g wit h

th e sp rin kl ers

. On Su nd ay , Sep te m be r 11

, Tay l o r w a s p l a c ed in a cel l wit h a ne w
cel lm at e. Tay lo r di d no t eat th e of fere d br eak fas t or lu nc h be cau se he was sl eep in g.

He ha d be en un ab le t o s l e e p th e pr ev io us two da y s whi le si tt in g up rig ht on th e

res tra in t be nc h. Late r th at da y , a fte r an ot he r al le ge d a rg um en t, Taylor de cl ared hi s

ne w cel lm at e an en em

y an d was ret ur ne d to th e be nc h. At al l po in ts

, Tay lo r refu se d

to ret ur n to a cel l wit h ei th er cel lm at e. Tay lo r rem ai ne d on th e be nc h or a m et al st oo l

un ti l th e ev en in g of W ed ne sd ay , Sep te m be r 14

. Dur in g th at ti m e, pr is o n o f f i ci al s,

fo ll owi ng th e Po li cy , di d no t feed Tay lo r. Tay lo r de sc rib ed ha vi ng st om ach p a i ns , li g h t h e a d ed ne ss , an d he ad ach es as well as feel in g weak

. He fir st at e ag ai n on th e

m or ni ng of Th ur sd ay , Sep te m be r 15 , aft er m is si ng ab ou t t welv e m eal s.

Ta yl or su ed pr is on of

fic ia ls al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of hi s Eig ht h an d Fo ur te en t h

Am en dm en t rig h t s

. H i s cas e pr oc eed ed to tri al

. Tay lo r’s co un se l req ue st ed an

ex ces si ve fo rce in st ru ct io n, whi ch th e d is tri ct co ur t ga ve

. Tay lo r’s co un se l al so

-2

-r eq ue st ed a no m in al da m ag es in st ru ct io n, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t refu se d to gi v e

.

The jury ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t fo r th e pr is on of fic ia ls

, fin di ng “ Ø” da m ag es fo r Tay lo r.

II.

Bo th b efo re an d du rin g tri al

, Tay lo r’s tri al co un se l req ue st ed a no m in al

da m ag es in st ru ct io n. A no m in al da m ag es ins tr uc tio n is ap pr op ria te in ex ces si ve fo rce

cas es whe re th ere is ev id en ce th at th e fo rce, de sp it e be in g ex ces si ve , di d no t cau se

a si gn ifi can t in

jury. Fo ul

k v. Cha rr ie r , 26 2 F.3 d 68 7, 70 1 (8t h Cir. 20 01 ). A pa rty

is en ti tl ed to an in st ru ct io n on it s th eo ry of th e cas e if i t i s l e g al ly co rrec t an d th ere

are fact s to su pp or t it

. Bo es in g v. Sp ie ss , 54 0 F

. 3 d 8 8 6, 89 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). Thi s

co ur t rev ie ws jury in st ru ct io ns fo r ab us e o f d i s c ret io n an d rev ers es a jury ve rd ic t

whe n t h e f

a i l u r e to gi ve a req ue st ed in st ru ct io n m is le d th e jury or ha d a pr ob ab le

effe ct on th e ve rd ic t. Se e Fr ie dm an & Fr ie dm an , Lt d. v. Tim e M

cCa nd le ss , I nc. , 60 6 F .3d 49 4, 5 00 (8t h C ir. 2 01 0)

.

The di st ric t co ur t err e d in no t su bm it ti ng th e in st ru ct io n to th e jury. “ W e
be li ev e th e jury is re qu ir ed to award no m in al da m ag es on ce it ha s fo un d cru el an d

un us ua l pu ni sh m en t if it ha s no t be en ab le to co nv ert in to do ll ars th e in jury an d pa in

a pl ai nt iff ha s su ffer ed .” Co wa ns v. Wyr ic k

, 86 2 F.2 d 69 7, 69 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 )
(em ph as is ad de d) ; ac co rd Fo ul k v. Cha rr ie r , 26 2 F.3 d 68 7, 70 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ). Thi s
vi ew is co ns is te nt wit h th e Eig ht h Ci rcu it Mo de l Ju ry In s t r u ct io n fo r no m in al

da m ag es , up on whi ch Tay lo r ba se d hi s pr op os ed in st ru ct io n. Thi s in st ru ct io n di rect s

th e jury th at if it fin ds in fav or of a pl a i n t i f f b u t fin ds th at th e da m ag es ha ve no

m on et ary va lu e, th e jury “ m us t ret ur n a ve rd ic t fo r th e pl ai nt iff in th e no m in al am ou nt

of One Dol la r ($ 1.0 0) .” Ei gh th Circ ui t Mod el Ju ry In st ruct io n 4.5 0B (West 20 08

& 20 11 ). The Co m

m it te e Co m

m en ts to th is In st ru ct io n al so st at e th at “ no mi n a l

da m ag es m

us t s t i l l be su bm it te d in Eig ht h Am en dm en t cas es if req ue st ed .” Id

. Mo reo ve r, th e Not es on Use acco m pa nyin g th e Exc es si ve Fo rce In st ru ct io n th at th e
di st ric t co ur t us ed he re st at e: “ Nom in al da m ag es wil l al so ha ve to be su bm it te d un de r

-3

-Co wa ns .” Ei gh th Circ ui t Mod el Ju ry In st ruct io n 4.3 0, no te 7 (West 20 08 & 20 11 )

(em ph as is ad de d)

.

The pr is on of

fic ia ls arg ue th e erro r in no t su bm it t i n g th e no m in al da m ag es

i n s t r u c t i o n to th e jury was ha rm le ss be cau se th e jury fo un d in th ei r fav or

. Th e

go ve rn m en t has th e bu rd en of pr ov in g har m le ss erro r. Unit ed Sta te s v. Pira ni

, 40 6

F.3 d 54 3, 55 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (en ba nc ). Und er th e in st ru ct io n th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve , da m ag es are a req ui red el em en t of a ve rd ic t in fav or of Tay lo r. Se e Ei gh th Circui t

Mod el Ju ry In st ruct io n 4.3 0 (We s t 2 0 0 8 & 20 11 ) (li st in g da m ag es as th e th ird

el em en t of th e cl ai m an d st a t i n g t h a t : “If an y of th e ab ov e el em en ts ha s no t be en

pr ov ed

, th en y ou r ve rd ic t m us t be fo r th e de fen da nt .”); se e al so
, e.g

. , Le e v.

And er so n , 6 1 6 F .3d 80 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (u si ng sa m e el em en ts of ex ces si ve fo rce

in st ru ct io n)

. Tha t is

, if th e jury an al y zed th is el em en t fir st an d fo un d no da m ag es , it

co ul d n ot fin d e xc es si ve for ce. The in st ru ct io ns de fin ed da m ag es as i nc lu di ng :

[t]he ph y si cal pa in an d em ot io na l su ffer in g th e pl ai nt iff ha s ex pe rie nc ed

an d is reas on ab ly cert ai n to ex pe rie nc e in th e fu t u re; th e na tu re an d

ex te nt of th e in

jury; wh et he r th e in

jury is te m

po rary o r p e r manen t an d
whe th er an y res ul ti ng di sa bi li ty is pa rti al or to ta l an d an y ag gr av at io n of

a p re-e xi st in g c on di ti on

.

Non e of th e in st ru ct io ns m en ti on ed no m in al da m ag es

. The da m ag es in st ru ct io n al so

st at ed : “ Rem em

be r, th ro ug ho ut y ou r de li be ra t i o n s y ou m us t no t en ga ge in an y

sp ecu la ti on s, gu es s, or co njec tu re an d y ou m us t n ot award an y da m ag es un de r th is

In st ru ct io n by way of pu ni sh m en t or th ro ug h sym pa th y .” In th e ab se nc e of a no m in al

da m ag es in st ru ct io n, t he in st ru ct io ns m is le d t he jury.

The pr is on of

fic ia ls rel y on Hol lo wa

y v. Alex an de r , 95 7 F.2 d 52 9, 53 1 (8 th Ci r.

19 92 ) to arg ue th e erro r was ha rm le ss

. The Hol lo wa y co ur t di d fin d th at a fai lu re to

in st ru ct on no m in al da m ag es was ha rm le ss be cau se “ th e jury di d no t co ns id er
da m ag es

. . . .” In th is cas e, al th ou gh th e jury fo un d fo r th e de fen da nt s, it al so wro te

-4

-“ Ø” in th e sp ace fo r da m ag es on th e v e r d ic t fo rm

. Thi s sh ows th at th e jury

co ns id ered th e da m ag es is su e an d fo un d th at Tay lo r ha d n o d a mag es un de r th e

in st ru ct io ns gi ve n. The la ck of a no m in al da m ag es in st ru ct io n ha d a pr ob ab le effe ct

on th is ve rd ic t.

The di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in no t su bm it ti ng th e req ue st ed no m in al

da m ag es in st ru ct io n t o t he jury. 1

** ** ** *

The jud gm en t of th e di st ric t c ou rt is rev ers ed

, an d th e cas e rem an de d fo r

fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s o pi ni on

.

BYE, Cir cu it Ju dg e, co nc ur rin g i n p art an d d is se nt in g i n p art

.

I co nc ur in th e m ajor it y 's co nc lu si on to rev ers e a nd rem an d fo r a ne w tri al

be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to pr ov id e a jury in st ru ct io n on no m in al da m ag es

. I

be li ev e th e di st ric t co ur t al so erre d whe n it di d no t pr ov id e a de li be rat e in di ffer en ce

in st ru ct io n, affe ct i n g Ta y lo r's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s an d am ou nt in g to a m is carr ia ge of
ju st ic e. Unl ik e th e m ajor it y , I th in k th e di st ric t co ur t wil l on ce ag ai n co nf ro nt th e

Tay lo r a l s o se ek s (p la in erro r) rev ie w of th e di st ric t co ur t’s fai lu re to 1
gi ve —af te r hi s fai lu re to req ue st

—a jury in st ru ct io n on de li be rat e in di ffer en ce. Thi s

co ur t ne ed no t ad dr es s th at is su e be cau se Tay lo r can req ue st a de li be rat e in di ffer en ce

in st ru ct io n if th e is su e ari se s ag ai n on rem an d in li gh t of ev id en ce at th e ret ria l. Se e Qua ll ey v. Cl o- Tex In t’l

, In c. , 21 2 F.3 d 11 23

, 11 32 n.1 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ In li gh t of

ou r de ci si on to rem an d th e cas e, we de cl in e to ad dr es s whe th er a jury in st ru ct io n on

th e do ct rin e of in pa ri de li ct o sh ou ld be gi v e n i n t h e n e w tri al
– th at de te rm in at io n

m us t be m ad e in li gh t of al l of th e ad m is si bl e ev id en ce su bm it te d to th e di st ric t co ur t

on ret ria l.”)

.

-5

-qu es ti on of th e pr op er jury in st ru ct io ns reg ard in g Tay lo r's Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m

du rin g hi s ne w tri al

. I th eref or e res pe ct fu ll y di ss en t fro m th e m ajor it y 's de ci si on no t

to co ns id er t he m at te r, an d I a dd res s i t i n t hi s s ep arat e o pi ni on

.

The m ajor it y be li ev es we ne ed no t c o n s id er th e de li be rat e in di ffer en ce

in st ru ct io n m at te r be cau se Tay lo r can req ue st su ch an in st ru ct io n if th e is su e ari se s

ag ai n on rem an d. If the di st ric t cou rt dec li ne s to pr ov id e th e in st ru ct io n an d Tay lo r

ap pe al s th at is su e, we wil l rev is it th e m at te r at th at ti m e. Howev er, we are n ot

req ui red to ov erl oo k m at te rs th at are li ke ly to recu r on rem an d, an d in fact

, we ha ve

en ga ge d t he m

on m an y oc cas io ns . S ee Un it ed Sta te s v . Ocho a-Go nz al ez, 5 98 F.3d

10 33

, 10 38 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ); W he el in g Pi tt sb ur gh St eel Co rp

. v. Bee lm an Ri ve r

Term in al s, In c., 25 4 F.3 d 70 6, 71 9 ( 8 t h C i r

. 20 01 ); Mi nn

. v. Kalm an W

. Abr am s

Met al s, In c., 15 5 F.3 d 10 19

, 10 25 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ); Uni te d St at es v. Grah am , 60 F.3 d

46 3, 46 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 95 ); Lus by v. Uni on Pac. R.R. Co

., 4 F .3d 63 9, 64 1 (1 99 3) ;

Oua ch it a Nat'l Ban k v. Tos co Co rp ., 6 86 F.2 d 12 91 , 1 29 9 (8 t h C i r

. 1 9 8 2 ) , r ev 'd en
ba nc o n o t h e r gr ou nd s, 71 6 F.2 d 48 5 (1 98 3)

. W he n "al le ga ti on s of erro r co nc ern

a c t i o ns of th e di st ric t co ur t th at are li ke ly to be rep eat ed up on rem an d," we may

co ns id er t ho se m at te rs "i n t he in te res ts of jud ic ia l eco no m y ." Oua ch it a Nat 'l Ba nk

, 68 6 F.2 d at 12 99

. Thi s cas e fit s th e m ol d. It th eref or e wor ks no de pa rtu re fro m ou r

cu st om to ad dr es s t he de li be rat e in di ffer en ce m at te r, an d I d o s o b el ow.

As t h e maj or it y co rrec tl y no te s, Tay lo r req ue st ed an d rece iv ed a jury

in st ru ct io n on ex ces si ve fo rce, b u t di d no t req ue st an in st ru ct io n on de li be rat e

in di ffer en ce. W he n a pa rty do es no t req ue st an in st ru ct io n at tri al

, we rev ie w th e
di st ric t co ur t's fai lu re to gi ve th at in st ru ct io n fo r pl ai n erro r. W eb be r v. St rip pi t, In c.,

18 6 F .3d 90 7, 9 15 (8t h C ir. 1 99 9) . To sh ow p la in erro r, Tay lo r m us t d em on st rat e:

(1 ) th ere is an erro r; (2 ) th e erro r is cl ear or ob vi ou s, rat he r th an su bjec t

to reas on ab le di sp ut e; (3 ) th e erro r affe ct ed th e ap pe ll an t’s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, wh ic h i n t he ord in ary cas e m ean s i t af fect ed th e o ut co m e o f th e

-6

-di st ric t co ur t pr oc eed in gs ; an d (4 ) th e erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s,

in te gr it y or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs

.

Uni te d St at es v. M a r c us , 13 0 S. Ct

. 21 59

, 21 64 (2 01 0) (ci ta ti on s, br ack et s, an d

in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) ; se e al so Mo or e v. Am

. Fam il y Mu t. In s. Co

., 57 6

F.3 d 78 1, 78 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti o n , q u o ta ti on m ark s, an d al te rat io ns

om it te d) ("[ W ]e m ay gr an t pl ai n erro r rel ie f whe n in st ru ct io na l erro r is pl ai n, affe ct s

a pa rty's su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, an d se rio us ly affe ct ed th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic

rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs [.]").

The Eig ht h Am en dm en t pr oh ib it s cru el an d u n u su al pu ni sh m en t of a pe rs on

co n vi ct ed of a cri m e. U.S. Co ns t. am en d. VIII. "[T]he un ne ces sa ry an d wan to n

in fli ct io n of p a in

. . . co ns ti tu te s cru el an d un us ua l pu ni sh m en t fo rb id de n by th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t." W hi tl ey v. Alb ers , 47 5 U.S. 31 2, 31 9 (1 98 6) (int ern al qu ot at io n

m ark s an d ci ta ti o n s o mitt ed ). Thi s wan to nn es s do es no t ha ve a fix ed m ean in g.

I n s t e a d

, it is de te rm in ed wit h "d ue reg ard fo r di ffer en ces in th e ki nd of co nd uc t

ag ai ns t whi ch an Ei g h t h A mend m en t ob jecti on is lo dg ed ." Id

. at 32 0. To

de m on st rat e su ch wan to nn es s in th e co nt ex t of a cl ai m ch al le ng in g a co nd it io n o f a

pr is on er's co nf

in em en t, a pl ai nt iff mu st sh ow two th in gs

. Fi rs t, th e pl ai nt iff m us t

m ak e an "o bjec ti ve " sh owi n g t h at th e de pr iv at io n im po se d by th e co nd it io n was

"s uf fic ie nt ly s eri ou s" to for m th e b as is for an Eig ht h Am en dm en t cl ai m

. W il so n v.
Sei te r, 50 1 U.S. 29 4, 29 8 (1 99 1)

. Seco nd

, th e pl ai nt i f f m us t m ak e a "s ub

jecti ve "

sh owi ng th at pri so n o ffi ci al s " act ed wit h a su ffi ci en tl y cu lp ab le st at e o f m in d." Id.

The de pr iv at io n im

po se d by th e co nd it io n o f Tay lo r's co nf in em en t was

"s uf fic ie n t l y s e r io us " to sa ti sf y th e ob jecti ve co m

po ne nt of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t

in qu iry. To be su ffi ci en tl y se rio us , "a pr is on of fic ia l's act or om is si on m

us t res ul t in

th e de ni al of 'th e m in im al ci vi li zed m eas ur e of li fe’s ne ces si ti es .'" Farm er v. Bren na n,

51 1 U.S. 82 5, 83 4 (1 99 4) (q uo ti ng Rh od es v. Ch ap m an , 45 2 U.S. 33 7, 34 7 (1 98 1) ).
"[P ]riso n of

fic ia ls m us t en su re th at in m at es rece iv e ad eq ua te fo od

, cl ot hi ng , sh el te r,

-7

-an d m ed ic al care , an d m us t 't ak e rea so na bl e m eas ur es to gu aran te e th e sa fet y of th e

in m at es .'" Farm er, 51 1 U.S. at 83 2 (q uo ti ng Hud so n v. Pal m er, 46 8 U.S. 51 7, 52 6- 27
(1 98 4) ). W e ha ve pr ev io us ly he ld th e de ni al of fo ur co ns ecu ti ve m eal s in a 36 -h ou r

pe rio d fe ll be lo w th at m in im al m eas ur e. Si m m on s v. Co ok

, 15 4 F .3d 80 5, 8 08 (8t h

Ci r. 19 98 ). And th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s ag reed wit h th e Elev en th Ci rcu it 's co nc lu si on
sh ack l i n g a p r i so ne r to a hi tc hi ng po st fo r se ve n ho ur s wit ho ut fo od or ba th ro om
br eak s, an d wit h on ly m in im al wate r, was li ke wis e in ad eq ua te

. See Hop e v. Pel zer,

53 6 U.S. 7 30 , 73 8 (2 00 2) . The fac ts in Tay lo r’s cas e are no les s s eri ou s. With on e
br ie f in te rm is si on du rin g a si x- da y pe rio d, Tay lo r rema i n e d s ha ck le d in an up rig ht

po si ti on to a m et al res tra in t be nc h or st oo l an d was de ni ed f oo d. The de pr iv at io n

im po se d up on Tay lo r pl ai nl y m eet s th e o b je c ti ve co m

po ne nt of th e Eig ht h

Am en dm en t i nq ui ry

.

The "s ubj ec tiv e" requ ire m en t of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t in qu iry de pe nd s on th e

na tu re of th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n th e pl ai nt iff al le ge s. W he n th e pl ai nt iff al le ge s

pr is on of fic ia ls us ed ex ces si ve ph ys i cal fo rce, we in qu ire whe th er th e fo rce was

ap pl ie d in a go od -fai th effo rt to m ai nt ai n or res to r e d is ci pl in e, or us ed m al ic io us ly

an d sa di st ic al ly fo r th e pu rp os e of cau si ng ha rm

. Hud so n v. McM il li an , 50 3 U.S. 1,

6- 7 (1 99 2) ; W hi tl ey , 47 5 U.S. at 32 0- 21

. Th e " mal i c io us an d sa di st ic " st an da rd

ap pl ie s whe n pr is on of

fic ia ls act in res po ns e to a pr is on di st ur ba nc e. Hud so n , 50 3

U.S. at 6; Nels on v. Co rr. Med

. Serv s., 58 3 F.3 d 52 2, 52 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (en ba nc ).

W e em pl oy th is st an da rd be cau se in a di st ur ba nc e, pr is on of fic ia ls m us t ba la nc e th e

th reat th e di st ur

ba nc e po se s to pr is on em pl oyees, in m at es , an d ot he rs , a ga in st th e

ha rm th at m ay res ul t fr om

th e u se of fo rce. A di st ur ba nc e al so req ui res co rrec ti on s

of fic ers to act "i n ha st e, un de r pr es su re, an d freq ue nt ly wit ho ut th e lu xu ry of a se co nd

ch an ce." W hi tl ey , 47 5 U.S. at 32 0. The "m al ic io us an d sa di st ic " st an da rd refl ect s th e
de fere nc e we g iv e to pri so n o ffi ci al s wh o re sp on d t o a n e m erg en cy

.

Bu t whe n ex ig en t ci rcu m st an ces are no t p r es en t, ne it he r are th e co m pe ti ng

co nc ern s of pr es erv in g sa fet y whi le pr ev en ti ng th e ha rm th at fo ll ows fro m th e us e of

-8

-fo rce. The st at e's res po ns ib il it y to pr ov id e in m at es wit h ad eq ua t e fo od

, cl ot hi ng ,

sh el te r, an d m ed ic al care is no t ba la nc ed ag ai ns t th e co m pe ti ng pe no lo gi cal ob

jecti ve

of rem ed y in g an un sa fe si tu at io n

. As a res ul t, th e su bjec ti ve req ui rem en t of th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t in qu iry be co m es le ss ex act in g. In su ch a pr is on -co nd it io ns cas e,

th e pl ai nt iff m

u s t al le ge pr is on of

fic ia ls act ed wit h "d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce" to th e

in m at e's he al th or sa fet y

. W il so n, 50 1 U.S. at 30 3; Nels on , 58 3 F.3 d at 52 8. A pr is on

of fic ia l is "d el ib erat el y in di ffer en t" if he or sh e "k no ws of an d di sr eg ard s an ex ces si ve
ris k to in m at e he al th or sa fet y

. " F a r mer, 51 1 U.S. at 83 7. Thi s kn owl ed ge

req ui rem en t ex is ts be cau se "p ris on of fic ia ls who la ck ed kn owl ed ge of a ris k can no t

be sai d t o h av e in fli ct ed pu ni sh m en t." Id. at 84 4.

D e t e rm in in g th e ap pl ic ab le st an da rd

, an d whe th er th at st an da rd is m et

, "wi l l

de pe nd up on ho w th e in ci de nt

. . . is ch arac te riz ed –wh et he r it was a se cu rit y m eas ur e

ta ke n t o q ue ll a di st ur ba nc e or m erel y pu ni sh m en t." Ste nz el v. Ell is , 91 6 F .2d 42 3,

42 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 90 ). If pr is on of fic ia ls ' act io ns a r e c h a r a ct eri zed as a res po ns e to a
di st ur ba nc e, th e "m al ic io us an d sad is ti c" st an da rd wil l app ly. If, o n t he ot he r ha nd

, th ey are ch arac te riz ed as m erel y pu ni sh m en t, t he "d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce" st an da rd

wil l ap pl y

.

The pr is on of

fic ia ls ch arac te riz e Tay lo r's sh ack li ng an d de ni al of fo od as pa rt

of a res po ns e to an in m at e-l ed di st ur ba nc e. Tay lo r was on e of twen ty-si x in m at es
who de cl ared th ei r res pe ct iv e cel lm at e th ei r en em y in a pe rio d of two -to -th ree ho ur s,

an d in m at es at te m

pt ed to flo od th ei r cel ls by br eak in g th e sp rin kl er he ad s lo cat ed

in si de th em

. App el le e's Br. 9- 10

. Bec au se sh ack li ng Tay lo r to th e res tra in t be nc h

to ok pl ace as pa rt o f an effo rt to de al wit h th at di st ur ba nc e, th ey sa y , th ei r st at e of

m in d s ho ul d b e m eas ur ed by the "m al ic io us an d s ad is ti c" s ta nd ard

.

It is no t al to ge th er cl e a r t h ere was a si gn ifi can t di st ur ba nc e req ui rin g

em erg en cy act io n, an d if th ere was su ch a di st ur ba nc e, whe n it en de d. Bu t ev en if th e
sh ack li ng di d ari se ou t of an or ga ni zed effo r t t o ag it at e, it is hi gh ly do ub tfu l— so

-9

-m

uc h so th at th e pr is on of

fic ia ls do no t arg ue —t he di st ur ba nc e co nt in ue d fo r th e fu ll

si x da y s du rin g whi ch Tay lo r was sh ack le d wit ho ut fo od

. Onc e pr is on of fic ia ls ha d

co nt ai ne d th e al le ge d di st ur ba nc e an d th e in m at es no lo ng er pr es en te d fu rth er da ng er

to pri so n s ta ff, th e pu bl ic , o r each ot he r, pr is on off ic ia ls were n o l on ge r req ui red to

m ak e sp li t-s eco nd de ci si on s. At th at ti m e, th e st a t e

- of -m in d req ui red to sh ow an Eig ht h Am en dm en t vi ol at io n was d e l i b e r a te in di ffer en ce. See DeSp ai n v. Uph of f,

26 4 F.3d 96 5, 97 6 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 01 ) (ap pl y in g th e "d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce" st an da rd

on ce th e th reat to sa fet y du rin g an in m at e-l ed p r i so n flo od ha d en de d) ; Jo hn so n v.
Lewis

, 21 7 F.3 d 72 6, 73 4 (9 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (co nc lu di ng t h e h e i gh te ne d W hi tl ey

st an da rd ap pl ie d du rin g a pr is on rio t, bu t th e de li be rat e in di ffer en ce st an da rd

go ve rn ed pr is on of

fic ia ls ' co nd uc t on ce in m at es were pr o ne an d ha nd cu ffed in a

pr is on y ard ). In de ed , t he Su pr em e Co ur t sa id as m uc h in Hop e, whe n it c o n c l u d ed

be cau se "[a ]ny sa fet y co nc ern s ha d lo ng si nc e a ba te d by th e ti m e pe ti ti on er was

ha nd cu ffed to th e hi tc hi ng po st ," pr i s on of fic ia ls ha d act ed wit h de li be rat e

in di ffer en ce t o t he in m at e's he al th an d s afet y

. 53 6 U.S. at 73 8. 2

W ha t is m or e, Tay lo r's cl ai m is no t li m it ed to ex ces si ve us e of fo rce. Tay lo r's
pl ead in g in cl ud ed th e co nd it io n o f c on fin em en t cl ai m an d sp eci fic al ly m en ti on ed

de pr iv at io n of fo od

. Pl .'s Am

. Co m pl

. 10

. The di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed as m uc h.

Su m m . J . Or de r 6 ("[ I]t is no t at al l cl ear fro m th e e v i d en ce why p la in ti ff co ul d no t

ha ve be en pr ov id ed a m in im al ly nu tri ti ou s di et whi le res t r a i n e d

. " )

. "[A] pa rty is

en ti tl ed to an in st ru ct io n o n it s t he or y of t he cas e so lo ng as i t i s l eg al ly corre ct an d

th ere is fact ua l ev id en ce to su pp or t it ." Farm la nd In du s. In c. v. Mo rri so n- Qui rk Grai n

Co rp ., 98 7 F.2 d 13 35

, 13 41 (8 t h C i r

. 19 93 ). And it is no t op en to qu es ti on th e
de li be rat e in di ffer en ce sta nd ard ap pl ie s to de ni al -o f-fo od cl ai m s. Farm er, 511 U.S.

The pr is on of

fic ia ls ci te Key v. McKi nn ey , 17 6 F.3 d 10 83 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) fo r 2

th e pr op os it io n th e " mal i c i ou s an d sa di st ic " st an da rd go ve rn s pr is on di st ur ba nc es

. In fact

, we ha d no oc cas io n to co ns id er th e ap pl ic ab il it y o f t h e " mal ic io us an d

sa di st ic " st an da rd be cau se th e pa rti es ag reed th e "d el ib erat e in di f f e r e n ce" st an da rd

was ap pr op ria te ly app li ed in th at cas e. Id . at 1 08 6.

-1 0-at 83 2; Bu tl er, 46 5 F.3 d at 34 5- 46

. In li gh t of th e pl ead in gs , th e su m m ary jud gm en t

or de r, an d th e la w, it can no t reas on ab ly b e d i s p ut ed th e de li be rat e in di ffer en ce

st an da rd sh o u ld ha ve be en ap pl ie d to Tay lo r's cas e an d Tay lo r was en ti tl ed to ha ve

th e jury in st ru ct ed on th at st an da rd

. The refo re, be cau se t h e d i s t ric t co ur t di d no t

pr ov id e a req ui r ed in st ru ct io n in th e face of in co nt ro ve rti bl e la w, th e di st ric t co ur t

co m m it te d (1 ) erro r th at is (2) cle ar an d o bv io us

.

Tay lo r m us t al so sh ow th e erro r "af fect ed [h is ] su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s, whi ch in th e

or di na ry cas e m ean s it affe ct ed th e ou tc om e of th e di st ric t co ur t pr oc e e d i ng s."

Mar cu s, 13 0 S. Ct

. at 21 64

. An erro r is pr ejud ic ia l if th ere is "'a reas on ab le

pr ob ab il it y th at

, bu t for [th e erro r cl ai m ed ], th e res ul t of th e pr oc eed in g wou ld ha ve
be en di ffer en t.'" Uni te d St at es v. Ken t, 5 31 F.3d 64 2, 6 56 (8t h C ir. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng
Uni te d S ta te s v . Dom in gu ez Be ni te z, 54 2 U.S. 7 4, 8 2 (2 00 4) ).

Co ns id er t he two po ss ib le in st ru ct io ns . Firs t, t he in st ru ct io n g iv en at t ria l:

You r ve rd ic t m

us t b e f o r th e pl ai nt iff an d ag ai ns t de fen da nt Dav e Dor m ire if a ll th e fo ll owi ng ele m en ts ha ve be en pro ve d:

Fir st

, th e de fen da nt cau se d or pe rm it te d Arth ur Tay lo r to be he ld

on a res tra in t b en ch , wit ho ut foo d, fo r m ul ti pl e d ay s, an d
S e c o nd

, th e us e of su ch fo rce was ex ces si ve an d ap pl ie d

m al ic io us ly an d sa di st ic al ly fo r th e ve ry pu rp os e of cau si ng ha rm ,
an d no t in a go od fai th effo rt to ach ie ve a le gi ti m at e pu rp os e; an d
Th ir d , as a di rect res ul t, t he pl ai nt iff was d am ag ed

.

In de te rm in in g whe th er th e fo rce was ex ces si ve , y ou m us t co ns id er su ch
fact or s as th e ne ed fo r th e ap pl ic at io n of fo rce, th e rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e ne ed an d th e am ou nt of fo rce th at was us ed

, an d th e e x t e n t of th e in jury in fli ct ed

, an d whe th er th e fo rce was us ed to ach ie ve a le gi ti m at e
pu rp os e or wan to nl y fo r th e ve ry pu rp os e of cau si ng h a r m

.

“ Mal ic io us ly” m ean s in te nt io na ll y in juri ng an ot he r wi t h ou t jus t cau se

-1 1-or reas on

. “ Sad is ti cal ly” m ean s en ga gi ng in ex tre m e or ex ces si ve

cru el ty or de li gh ti ng in cru el ty.

If an y of th e ab ov e el em en ts ha s no t be en pr ov ed

, th en y ou r ve rd ic t m us t be for th e d efen da nt Dave Dorm ire

.

App el l a n t 's App

. 17 7. Co m pa re th is in st ru ct io n to th e m od el Eig ht h Ci rcu it jury

in st ru ct io n o n d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce.

Deli be rat e in di ffer en ce is est ab li sh ed on ly if th ere is act ua l kn owl ed ge of a su bs ta nt ia l ris k th at th e pl ai nt iff (d es cri be se rio us m ed ic al pr ob le m

or ot he r se rio us ha rm th at th e de fen da nt is ex pe ct ed to pr e v e n t ) an d if
th e de fen da nt di sr eg ard s th at ris k by in te nt io na ll y r efu si ng or in te nt io na ll y fai li ng to ta ke r e a s o n ab le m eas ur es to de al wit h th e
pr obl em

. Me re ne gl ig en ce or in ad ve rte nc e do es no t co ns ti tu te delib er at e in di ffer en ce.

Eig ht h Ci r c u i t M a nu al of Mo de l Ju ry In st ru ct io ns (Ci vi l) § 4.4 4 (2 01 2)

. The

in st ru ct io ns req ui re s ig ni fic an tl y di ffer en t l ev el s o f cu lp ab il it y . By no t pr ov id in g a
de li be rat e in di ffer en ce in st ru ct io n, th e di st ric t co ur t le d th e jury to be li ev e Tay lo r ha d

to sh ow th e pr is on of

fic ia ls de ni ed hi m fo od m al ic io us ly an d sa di st ic al ly fo r th e ve ry

pu rp os e of cau si ng ha rm

. In fact

, th e jury co u l d h a v e f o u nd fo r Tay lo r up on a
sh owi ng th e pr is on of

fic ia ls were de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s ne ed to eat du rin g th e

ti m e he was sh ack le d. Giv en th e fact s of th e cas e, I be li ev e it is reas on ab ly pr ob ab le

th e jury wou ld ha ve co nc lu de d di ffer en tl y ha d Tay lo r rece iv ed th e d e l i b e rat e

in di ffer en ce i ns tru ct io n.

Thi s i s es pe ci al ly so g iv en th e p ris on off ic ia ls were fol lo win g Depar tm en t o f

Co rrec ti on s Po li cy in no t pr ov id in g Tay lo r fo od

. The jury m ay ha ve c o n c l ud ed

be cau se th e pr i s o n of

fic ia ls were si m

pl y carr y in g ou t th e Po li cy , th ey were no t

in juri ng Tay lo r wit ho ut ju s t cau se or reas on , en ga gi ng in ex tre m e or ex ces si ve

cru el ty, or de li gh ti ng in cru el ty–in ot he r wor d s , n o t act in g m al ic io us ly an d

-1 2-sa di st ic al ly. Nev ert he le ss , th e jury co ul d reas on ab ly ha ve fo un d th e pr is on of fic ia ls

kn ew of th e si gn ifi can t ris k to Tay lo r's he al th th at fo ll owe d fro m no t feed in g hi m , an d

di sr eg ard ed th at ris k by ad he rin g to th e Po li cy

. The refo re, I be li ev e Tay lo r ha s sh own

th e err or om it ti ng th e in st ru ct io n a ffec te d h is su bs ta nt ia l ri gh ts

.

Fi na ll y , Tay lo r m

us t sh ow "t he erro r se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y or

pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs ." M arcu s, 13 0 S. Ct

. at 21 64

. "J ur y

in st ru ct io ns m

us t fai rly an d ad eq ua te ly st a t e th e la w, bu t 'we wil l no t fin d erro r in

in st ru ct io ns si m

pl y be cau se th ey are t e c hn ic al ly im pe rfec t or are no t a m od el of

cl ari ty.'" Qui gl ey v. W in te r, 59 8 F.3 d 93 8, 95 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Has ti ng s v.

Bo st on Mu t. Life In s. Co

., 97 5 F.2 d 50 6, 51 0 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) )

. In cl os e fact ua l

si tu at io ns , "t he st an da rd of care an d bu rd en of pr oo f ha ve he ig ht en ed im po rta nc e an d

can eas il y affe ct th e jury's ul ti m at e ve rd ic t." W he el in g Pi tt sb ur gh St eel

, 25 4 F.3 d at

71 4; se e a ls o Uni te d St at es v. Herro n, 97 F.3 d 23 4, 23 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (in te rn al

ci ta ti on an d q uo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) ("[ B]ecau se it is un cl ear whe th er a pr op erl y

in st ru ct ed ju r y w o u l d ha ve fo un d [th e de fen da nt ] gu il ty

. . . fai lu re to co rrec t th e
di st ric t co ur t's erro r co ul d res ul t in a m is carr ia ge of jus ti ce an d wou ld se rio us ly affe ct

th e fai rn es s, i nt eg rit y , or p ub li c rep ut at io n o f jud ic ia l p ro ceed in gs .").

Here, th e jury was no t in st ru ct ed on th e pr op er fram ewo rk f o r a n a l yz i ng an d

rem ed y in g th e al le ge d co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n. Perm it ti ng th e ve rd ic t to st an d whe n

th e jury m ay ha ve fo u n d di ffer en tl y if gi ve n th e req ui red in fo rm at io n wou ld be a

m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.

In su m , Tay lo r ha s sa ti sf

ie d th e st an da rd fo r pl ai n erro r, an d I wou ld rev ers e

th e jud gm en t of th e di st ric t co ur t on th is ba si s. I co nc ur in th e m ajor it y 's co nc lu si on

to rev ers e on th e no m in al da m ag es in st ru ct io n m at te r, an d resp ect fu ll y di ss en t from

th e m ajor it y 's d eci si on no t t o a dd res s t he de li be rat e in di ffer en ce i ns tru ct io n m at te r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 3-