Case Name: Donald Wayne HULL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R. FORD; Etc.; et al., Defendants, Mr. Bolech, Corrections Officer III, Garza West Unit, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-25
Citations: 236 F. App'x 972
Docket Number: No. 06-40777
Parties: Donald Wayne HULL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R. FORD; Etc.; et al., Defendants, Mr. Bolech, Corrections Officer III, Garza West Unit, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before JOLLY, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 236
Pages: 972–973

Head Matter:
Donald Wayne HULL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. R. FORD; Etc.; et al., Defendants, Mr. Bolech, Corrections Officer III, Garza West Unit, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-40777
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 25, 2007.
Donald Wayne Hull, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Patrick Nicholas Brezik, Office of the Attorney General, Law Enforcement Defense Div., Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before JOLLY, GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ben Bolech appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for summary judgment on the grounds of qualified immunity. Ben Bolech filed the motion in response to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint filed by Donald Wayne Hull when he was Texas prisoner # 623637.
In his complaint alleging excessive use of force, Hull stated that Bolech stabbed him three times in the right leg with an ink pen and that he sustained three lacerations to his leg as a result of Bolech's actions. The district court denied Bolech's motion for summary judgment on the ground that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the need and amount of force used by Bolech. Bolech does not contest the district court's finding in this regard. Rather, he argues that he was entitled to qualified immunity because Hull's injuries are de minimus.
A showing of some type of injury, more than de minimus, is necessary to assert an excessive force claim. Williams v. Bramen 180 F.3d 699, 703 (5th Cir.1999). In order to determine whether injuries caused by excessive force are de minimus, the context in which the force was used must be examined. Id. " '[T]he amount of injury necessary to satisfy our requirement of 'some injury' and establish a constitutional violation is directly related to the amount of force that is constitutionally permissible under the circumstances.' " Id. at 703-04 (quoting Ikerd v. Blair, 101 F.3d 430, 434 (5th Cir.1996)). Because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the need and amount of force used by Bolech, the injuries cannot be determined to be de minimus simply by evaluating the physical nature of the injury. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
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.