Opinion ID: 780379
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excessive Force Claims Against Individual Officers3

Text: 32 An inmate's post-conviction excessive force claim must be raised exclusively under the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause. Pelfrey v. Chambers, 43 F.3d 1034, 1036-37 (6th Cir.1995). In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), the Supreme Court set forth the standard for analyzing excessive force claims under the Eighth Amendment: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Id. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995. 33 The maintenance of prison security and discipline may require that inmates be subjected to physical contact actionable as assault under common law; however, a violation of the Eighth Amendment will nevertheless occur if the offending conduct reflects an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Pelfrey, 43 F.3d at 1037 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Factors to consider in determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary include the extent of injury suffered by an inmate, the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat `reasonably perceived by the responsible officials,' and `any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.' Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7, 112 S.Ct. 995. 34 [O]fficials confronted with a prison disturbance must balance the threat unrest poses to inmates, prison workers, administrators, and visitors against the harm inmates may suffer if guards use force. Id. at 6, 112 S.Ct. 995. Because prison officials must make their decisions in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance, we must grant them wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 35
36 Combs asserts that when he placed his face near the broken window in his cell, Officer Krupa sprayed him in the eyes and face with liquid mace and ordered him to move away from the window. The district court determined that Combs failed to establish that Krupa's conduct was malicious or sadistic, citing cases in which courts have recognized that the use of mace to control a prison inmate is not malicious or sadistic. See, e.g., Thomas v. Greene, No. 99-3179, 1999 WL 1253102 (6th Cir. Dec.17, 1999) (affirming the dismissal of an excessive force claim by an inmate who was maced when he refused to consent to a strip search). The district court stated: Keeping in mind that Defendant Krupa acted in the context of [a] prison disturbance in which prison officials had lost control of the unit, this Court must lend substantial deference to his decision to use mace, which he made in haste and under significant pressure. We agree and affirm the summary judgment in favor of Krupa. 37
38 All three plaintiffs assert that unidentified officers used excessive force in removing them from their cells and escorting them to OPI for medical treatment. In dismissing Combs's excessive force claims due to his failure to present any evidence concerning the identity of the officers, the district court stated: Even assuming that the facts as set forth by Plaintiff Combs are true, there is no way for a jury to determine whether the conduct was a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, absent an allegation that certain individuals are responsible for the conduct. Claiming that they were unable to identify the officers because they wore black uniforms, gas masks, and no name badges, plaintiffs argue that [t]he District Court's holding, if permitted to stand, discourages civil rights litigants from redressing their claims and encourages unscrupulous state officers to shield their identity and their liability with black suits, gas masks, and a lack of officer name badges. 39 The district court properly dismissed Combs's excessive force claims against any unidentified officers, and defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Skatzes's and Robb's claims against unidentified officers as well. Under their theory of the case, plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages from some source, even if they cannot prove that any named defendant actually used force against them. Plaintiffs essentially seek to impose respondeat superior liability against the supervisory officers, ManCI, ODRC, and/or the State of Ohio for the actions of these unidentified officers. It is well settled that § 1983 liability will not be imposed solely on the basis of respondeat superior. Hays v. Jefferson County, 668 F.2d 869, 872 (6th Cir.1982). 4 40