Opinion ID: 2633065
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: plaintiff's unnecessary rigor claim

Text: ¶19 A prisoner suffers from unnecessary rigor when subject to unreasonably harsh, strict, or severe treatment. This may include being unnecessarily exposed to an increased risk of serious harm. In Bott, we upheld a jury verdict holding prison officials liable for violating a prisoner's rights under article I, section 9 when they failed to provide the prisoner with timely medical attention despite his repeated requests and grievances. [21] We also noted, however, that not every case of retrospectively inadequate attention to prisoner requests was a constitutional violation. We declared in Bott that a violation of the prohibition on unnecessary rigor must arise from treatment that is clearly excessive or deficient and unjustified, not merely the frustrations, inconveniences, and irritations that are common to prison life. [22] When the claim of unnecessary rigor arises from an injury, a constitutional violation is made out only when the act complained of presented a substantial risk of serious injury for which there was no reasonable justification at the time. ¶20 The allegations of the complaint in the record do not address the necessity, if any, of the acts involved, nor do they include any assessment of the risk inherent in the act. As such, the allegations may be sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim but may not withstand further evidentiary challenge. We leave it to the district court to resolve the question in the course of further proceedings.