Opinion ID: 443982
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims of Constitutional Dimension?

Text: 6 In analyzing whether the use of excessive force is of constitutional dimension, giving rise to redress under section 1983, this circuit has adopted the following standard: 7 In determining whether the state officer has crossed the constitutional line that would make the physical abuse actionable under Section 1983, we must inquire into the amount of force used in relationship to the need presented, the extent of the injury inflicted and the motives of the state officer. If the state officer's action caused severe injuries, was grossly disproportionate to the need for action under the circumstances, and was inspired by malice rather than merely careless or unwise excess of zeal so that it amounted to an abuse of official power that shocks the conscience, it should be redressed under Section 1983. 8 Shillingford v. Holmes, 634 F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir.1981). 9 Raley incorrectly argues that the trial court failed to evaluate all the factors mentioned, and instead discussed only the severity of his injuries. The court stated that it found that the officers' actions were the product of a 'careless or unwise excess of zeal' rather than malice. As to proportionality of force to need, the court found that Raley's minimal resistance ... did not justify Officer Fraser's draconian measures. The court did not, however, find the disproportion to be so gross as to make section 1983 applicable. The court held that the minor bruises and scrapes suffered by Raley did not meet the Shillingford severity requirement. The officers' behavior did not [amount] to an abuse of official power that shocks the conscience. Id. We conclude that the record supports the findings and decision of the district court.