Opinion ID: 747522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Physical Assault

Text: 5 A prison guard's use of force amounts to cruel and unusual punishment only if it involves 'the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.'  Sampley v. Ruettgers, 704 F.2d 491, 495 (10th Cir.1983) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)). A de minimis use of force is not wanton and unnecessary unless it is repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1992). 6 The magistrate judge noted that Mr. Spann provided evidence of only minimal physical contact between himself and [Officer] Barby, Rec. doc.13, at 9, and on appeal Mr. Spann concedes he was not physically harmed in [the] assault. Aplt's Br. at 2. Therefore, we agree with the district court that the physical assault claim should fail. 7 However, in lieu of pressing his physical assault cause of action, Mr. Spann alleges a conspiracy to subject him to mental anguish. See id. But he presents us with no facts in support of this claim, and he failed to raise it below. 8 Therefore, we find it without merit and decline to discuss it further. 9 We also agree with the magistrate judge that, were there merit to Mr. Spann's claims, Warden Melton would be entitled to qualified immunity, as there is no evidence Warden Melton personally participated in or knowingly acquiesced to the alleged use of force by Officer Barby. See Rec. doc. 13, at 10 (citing Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Jenkins v. Wood, 81 F.3d 988, 994-95 (10th Cir.1996)).