Opinion ID: 3011853
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Understandable Reaction

Text: 4 In an excessive force claim, the central question is 'whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.' Brooks, 204 F.3d at 106 (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992)). Courts looks to several factors in making this determination including: (1) the need for the application of force; (2) the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used; (3) the extent of the injury inflicted; (4) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by responsible officials on the basis of the facts known to them; and (5) any efforts made to temper the severity of the response. Id. (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 321 (1986)). Contrary to Reyes' claim that the District Court avoided a material dispute on the degree of force used, the District Court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Reyes, stating that [p]laintiff alleges that ... Defendant ... punched him on the shoulder and neck area while he was handcuffed. Opinion at 5. The Court then applied the above factors and concluded that Chinnici was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court noted that: Reyes was a security status inmate; Reyes admitted to attempting to spit on Chinnici and provoked Chinnici by attempting to do so; Chinnici struck Reyes once, and not in the head or face; the purpose of Chinnici's reaction was to avoid being spit on; and the resulting injury was minor and temporary. While the District Court did not note this fact, the corrections officers then immediately placed Reyes back in his cell without further incident. Reyes claims that he did not actually spit on Chinnici and a reasonable jury could 5 conclude that he did not present a threat or security risk to Chinnici or the other officers; however, the District Court specifically stated that Plaintiff does not suggest what appropriate alternative response was available to Defendant under the circumstances. Opinion at 8. The Court added that [i]t certainly is unreasonable and would undermine institutional discipline to expect a corrections officer to simply allow himself to be spit upon. Id. Reyes further focuses on the fact that each of the three officers deposed in this case admitted that punching a handcuffed prisoner can never be an acceptable use of force. This argument is not persuasive, as the District Court correctly noted, because regardless of whether Chinnici's action was appropriate, there is no constitutional violation for 'de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind.' Brooks, 204 F.3d at 107 (quoting Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9-10). A single punch to avoid being spit upon is not the sort of action that is repugnant to the conscience of mankind.