Opinion ID: 2979846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Eighth Amendment Harassment

Text: Evans also argues that Defendants administered the May 2005 drug test to him solely for harassment purposes, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Prisoners retain a remedy for “calculated harassment unrelated to prison needs.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984). The district court cited the Seventh Circuit’s pronouncement that “the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment stands as a protection from bodily searches which are maliciously motivated, unrelated to institutional security, and hence ‘totally without penological justification.’” Meriwether v. Faulkner, 821 F.2d 408, 418 (7th Cir. 1987) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 346 (1981)). However, we have neither adopted nor cited our sister circuit’s rule, and the Supreme Court has stated that even punishments that are “totally without penological justification” do not violate the Eighth Amendment unless they inflict some level of pain. Rhodes, 452 U.S. at 346. Because Evans has failed to make out a cognizable claim, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Defendants on this claim. - 11 - No. 09-6283 William Evans v. Harry Vinson, et al.