Opinion ID: 183893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legal Standard: Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Text: The district court properly characterized Petitioner's claim as arising under the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548, 556 (6th Cir. 2002). The Eighth Amendment proscribes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain against prisoners. See, e.g., Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986). Although prison discipline may require that inmates endure relatively greater physical contact, the Eighth Amendment is nonetheless violated if the offending conduct reflects an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Pelfrey v. Chambers, 43 F.3d 1034, 1037 (6th Cir.1995) (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). To make out a claim under the Eighth Amendment, the prisoner must satisfy both an objective and a subjective component. See, e.g., Moore v. Holbrook, 2 F.3d 697, 700 (6th Cir.1993). The subjective component focuses on the state of mind of the prison officials. The relevant inquiry is whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Courts may consider the need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, and the extent of injury inflicted. Whitley, 475 U.S. at 321, 106 S.Ct. 1078. Courts may also consider the circumstances as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials on the basis of the facts known to them, and any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response. Id. The objective component requires the pain inflicted to be sufficiently serious. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991). This is a contextual inquiry that is responsive to contemporary standards of decency. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 8-9, 112 S.Ct. 995 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). The seriousness of the injuries are not dispositive; as the Supreme Court has held, [w]hen prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated . . . whether or not significant injury is evident. Id. at 9, 112 S.Ct. 995; see also Wilkins v. Gaddy, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1175, 1178, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2010) (per curiam).