Opinion ID: 183893
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application: Complaint States a Claim Under the Eighth Amendment

Text: The district court erred in concluding that the Complaint fails to state a claim. Giving due regard to Petitioner's status as a pro se litigant, we find that the Complaint contains sufficient factual averments that, if true, state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face under the Eighth Amendment. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). With regard to the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, Petitioner has sufficiently alleged that Respondents acted with a culpable state of mind. Contrary to the statements of the district court, Petitioner does not admit that he disobeyed a direct order. [2] Petitioner alleges that, when instructed to pack up, he inquired, What for, sir?, at which point an assault team entered the cell and used a chemical agent on him. These facts, if true, may permit a finding that the use and/or amount of force was unnecessary, which may suggest that Respondents' actions were not taken in good faith and were perhaps motivated by the malicious purpose of causing harm. Likewise, with regard to the objective component of an Eighth Amendment claim, Petitioner has sufficiently alleged that Respondents inflicted sufficiently serious pain. Although the district court found that Petitioner's allegations of injurynamely, coughing and shortage of oxygenconstitute a de minimus [sic] injury, this finding is an insufficient basis upon which to dismiss the Complaint. See Wilkins, 130 S.Ct. at 1178. If it were a sufficient basis, as the Supreme Court has explained, the Eighth Amendment would permit any physical punishment, no matter how diabolic or inhuman, inflicting less than some arbitrary quantity of injury. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S.Ct. 995. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently reversed a sua sponte dismissal of a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim, where the lower court did so on the basis of de minimis injury. See Wilkins, 130 S.Ct. at 1178-80. The Court rejected the argument that the Eighth Amendment requires a showing of significant injury, holding instead that the judicial inquiry should focus on the nature of the force rather than the extent of the injury. Id. at 1177. The district court thus should have considered the degree of force applied. Here, Petitioner alleges that an assault squad used a chemical agent to disable him. Viewing Petitioner's Complaint in the light most favorable to himand assuming he can prove that Respondents acted with a culpable state of mindhis allegations of a violent extraction, complete with use of a chemical agent that caused some degree of injury to Petitioner, are adequate to plead that the pain inflicted was sufficiently serious. See id. at 1178-79 (Injury and force . . . are only imperfectly correlated, and it is the latter that ultimately counts. An inmate who is gratuitously beaten by guards does not lose his ability to pursue an excessive force claim merely because he has the good fortune to escape without serious injury.).