Opinion ID: 146927
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Claims Against Officer Villella

Text: The Eighth Amendment prohibits prison officials from unnecessarily and wantonly inflicting pain in a manner that offends contemporary standards of decency. See Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992). When reviewing Eighth Amendment excessive force claims, we must determine whether the “force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” Id. at 7. Whether the force applied was excessive requires the examination of several factors including: (1) ‘the need for the application of force’; (2) ‘the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used’; (3) ‘the extent of injury inflicted’; (4) ‘the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by responsible officials on the basis of the facts known to them’; and (5) ‘any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.’ Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102, 106 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Whitley v. Albers, 465 U.S. 312, 321 (1986)). Although the extent of an inmate’s injuries is relevant to an Eighth Amendment analysis, “there is no fixed minimum quantum of injury that a prisoner must prove that he suffered through objective or independent evidence in order to state a claim for wanton and excessive force.” Id. at 104. 4 We find that Matthews has stated a plausible claim for relief by alleging that Villella acted wantonly and maliciously by striking his handcuffed hands with a billy club, without any apparent provocation. Matthews claims that his “smashed” finger required x-rays and a “buddy splint,”and that a pre-existing injury was aggravated. Even if we consider his injuries de minimis, Matthews has alleged the use of wanton, unnecessary force resulting in pain and injury. Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order as to this claim and remand for further proceedings.