Document: 475 U.S. 312 106 S.Ct. 1078 89 L.Ed.2d 251 Harol WHITLEY, Individually and as Assistant Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, et al., Petitionersv.Gerald ALBERS. No. 84-1077. Argued Dec. 10, 1985. Decided March 4, 1986. Syllabus During the course of a riot at prison officer was taken hostage placed in cell on upper tier two-tier cellblock. In an attempt to free hostage, officials worked out plan that called for prisoner security manager enter cellblock unarmed, followed by officers armed with shotguns. The ordered one fire warning shot shoot low any inmates climbing stairs since he would be hostage. One officers, after firing shot, respondent left knee when started up stairs. Respondent subsequently brought action Federal District Court against petitioner pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, they had deprived him his rights under Eighth Fourteenth Amendments. At conclusion trial, directed verdict petitioners. Appeals reversed remanded new trial respondent's Amendment claim. Held: 1. shooting did not violate right from cruel unusual punishments. Pp. 318-326. (a) It is obduracy wantonness, inadvertence or error good faith, characterize conduct prohibited Cruel Unusual Punishments Clause, whether occurs connection establishing conditions confinement, supplying medical needs, restoring control over tumultuous infliction pain measure, therefore, does amount punishment simply because it may appear retrospect degree force authorized applied purposes unreasonable, hence unnecessary strict sense. general requirement claimant establish wanton should also due regard differences kind involved. Thus, where measure undertaken resolve disturbance, such occurred this case, poses significant risks safety staff, question inflicted suffering ultimately turns good-faith effort maintain restore discipline maliciously sadistically purpose causing harm. 318-322. (b) Viewing evidence light most favorable respondent, must done reviewing decision reversing court's petitioners, supports reliable inference wantonness above standard. Evidence arguably showing erred judgment decided employed potentially deadly force, falls far short there no plausible basis their belief necessary. particular, order shoot, qualified instruction low, commanding fashion. Nor failure provide verbal warning, addition so insupportable wanton, inmate running could reasonably thought pose threat rescue attempt. And take into account possibility might climb return rise level violation. Assuming rather than group knowing do so. Under all these circumstances, part parcel security. 322-326. 2. Due Process Clause cannot serve alternative affirmance, independently Amendment. context, affords greater protection Clause. P. 326-327. 743 F.2d 1372 (CA9, 1984), reversed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, which BURGER, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, joined, post, p. 328. Dave Frohnmayer, Salem, Or., Gene B. Mechanic, Portland, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 This case requires us decide what standard governs inmate's claim subjected during quell riot. 2 * time injured, Gerald Albers confined "A" Penitentiary. Cellblock consists two tiers barred cells housing some 200 inmates. are connected stairway offers only practical way move another. 3 about 8:30 evening June 27, 1980, several were found intoxicated annex. Prison guards attempted prisoners, whom resisted, penitentiary's isolation segregation facility. incident seen windows "A," onlookers became agitated using force. Acting instructions superiors, Officers Kemper Fitts, who duty prisoners cells. obeyed. Several confronted standing open area lower tier. inmate, Richard Klenk, jumped second assaulted Officer Kemper. escaped but Fitts Klenk other then began breaking furniture milling about. 4 Upon being informed Whitley, manager, entered spoke Klenk. Captain Whitley agreed permit four residents view been earlier. These emissaries reported back unharmed. Nonetheless, disturbance continued. 5 returned confirmed harmed. Shortly thereafter, moved office 201 tier, demanded media representatives negotiations, homemade knife, already killed deaths follow. fact, beaten prisoners. 6 organize assault squad. When see 201. assured protect harm, threatened kill if made lead assault. least aware assembled outside shotguns issued. Meanwhile, elderly housed harm's event tear gas used. testified asked key row indicated key. denied disturbance. Tr. 380. 7 next consulted petitioners Cupp, Kenney, Superintendent. They forceful intervention necessary life rioting, ruled unworkable alternative. Cupp squad "A." 8 gave final orders team, Petitioner Kennicott follow barricade constructed entrance. A without firearms, behind them. crossed barricade. He toward 201, himself, 9 10:30 p.m., reappeared just By time, half hour elapsed earlier furniture, noise noticeably diminished. Respondent, bottom stairway, replied "No," clambered barricade, yelled "shoot bastards," ran areaway along number fired wall opposite entrance struck post near stairway. chased stairs, shortly thereafter third knee. Another others wounded gunshot. prevented entering, subdued door, freeing 10 As result incident, sustained severe damage leg mental emotional distress. commenced alleging Amendments raising pendent state law claims battery negligence. Many facts stipulated, 53-60, both sides presented testimony witnesses attempt, well expert backgrounds Judge understood based solely applicable States See Robinson v. California, 370 660, 82 1417, 758 (1962). held: 11 "[D]efendants' use justified unique circumstances case. Possible alternatives considered rejected officers. specifically anyone following unarmed secure safe release discipline. Even hindsight, said defendants' actions necessary." 546 F.Supp. 726, 735 (Ore.1982). 12 alternative, held immune damages liability constitutional constraints clearly established. Finally, recovery virtue immunity conferred public Tort Claims Act arising riots mob actions. 13 panel Ninth Circuit affirmed part, judge dissenting. (1984). court violation established "if official deliberately official, allowance exigency, knew have known unnecessary," id., 1375, emergency adopted carried 'deliberate indifference' punishment." Ibid. pointed subsiding experts' excessive preceded concluded jury Id., 1376. 14 prevail defense, "[a] finding deliberate indifference inconsistent faith immunity." Accordingly, claim, while agreeing claims, 1377, asserted independent 1374, n. We granted certiorari, 472 1007, 105 2700, 86 716 (1985), now reverse. II 15 language Amendment, "[e]xcessive bail shall required, nor fines imposed, punishments inflicted," manifests "an intention limit power those entrusted criminal-law function government." Ingraham Wright, 430 651, 664, 97 1401, 1408, 51 711 (1977). "was designed convicted crimes," ibid., consequently applies "only has complied guarantees traditionally associated criminal prosecutions." 671, 40, S.Ct., 1412, 40. Revere Massachusetts General Hospital, 463 239, 244, 103 2979, 2983, 77 605 (1983); Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 535, 16, 99 1861, 1872, 60 447 (1979). An express intent inflict Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 104, 285, 291, 50 (1976) ("deliberate indifference" prisoner's serious needs punishment), harsh "conditions confinement" constitute unless "are penalty offenders pay offenses society." Rhodes Chapman, 452 337, 347, 101 2392, 2399, 69 59 (1981). 16 Not every governmental affecting interests well-being subject scrutiny, however. "After incarceration, ' "unnecessary pain" . constitutes forbidden Amendment." supra, U.S., 670, 1412 (quoting 103, 290) (citations omitted). To punishment, purport involve more ordinary lack care safety. reading underlies our 105-106, 291-292, physician's "negligen[ce] diagnosing treating condition" suffice make punishment. 17 allege prove objection lodged. articulated appropriate context State's responsibility attend ordinarily clash equally important responsibilities. Consequently, "deliberate illness injury," Estelle, 105, can typically disproved necessity balancing competing institutional concerns staff But, making carrying decisions involving face undoubtedly very real threats unrest presents alike, possible harms we Hudson Palmer, 468 517, 526-527, 104 3194, 3200, 393 (1984), administrators charged ensuring administrative personnel, visitors, "obligation reasonable measures guarantee themselves." setting, adequately capture importance obligations, convey hesitancy critique hindsight necessarily haste, pressure, frequently luxury chance. 18 Where indisputably think "whether harm." Johnson Glick, 481 1028, 1033 (CA2) (Friendly, J.), cert. sub nom. John Johnson, 414 1033, 94 462, 38 324 (1973). correctly perceived, "such factors need application relationship between used, [and] extent injury F.2d, relevant ultimate determination. F.Supp., 733. From considerations inferences drawn plausibly necessary, instead evinced respect unjustified harm tantamount willingness occur. Duckworth Franzen, 780 645, 652 (CA7 1985) (equating indifference," risks, "recklessness law," "implies act dangerous defendant's knowledge risk inferred"); cf. Block Rutherford, 576, 584, 3227, 3231, 438 (1984) (requiring pretrial detainees claiming "punishment" process punish show challenged " 'is related legitimate goal,' inferred); 539, 1874. But inmates, perceived responsible them, efforts temper severity response. 19 "ever-present potential violent confrontation conflagration," Jones North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 119, 132, 2532, 2541, 53 629 (1977), ripens actual conflict, admonition "a prison's internal peculiarly matter normally discretion administrators," 349, 14, 2400, carries special weight. "Prison accorded wide-ranging deference adoption execution policies practices needed preserve security." 547, 1878. That extends response riotous prophylactic preventive intended reduce incidence breaches insulate review bad purpose, neither freely substitute choice. ruling motion this, courts determine goes beyond mere dispute reasonableness particular existence superior alternatives. Unless appears evidence, viewed plaintiff, will support described, go jury. III 20 Since comes Court's evaluate believed made, conflicting used excessive, enough allow find violated. effectively collapsed distinction negligence implicit Only errors create question. 21 begin with, although quieted down, guard still threatening, clubs, numerous remained cells, situation volatile. concedes, officer's dangerous." Brief 25. direction matters continued negotiate nothing, ample reason believe options unacceptable risks. 22 Respondent's likewise unavailing. experts opined inadequate consideration less means intervention, "prevent imminent danger" 266. "possibly little hasty firepower" 314. most, controverted petitioners' experts, establishes officials' Indeed, run counter common sense, demonstrably persisted notwithstanding repeated attempts defuse situation. expert's after-the-fact danger "imminent" danger, wholly unreasonable. 23 Once basic design place, moreover, apparent why interfering progress towards present success Whitley—particularly fired. sizable defiance cell-in stand organized group," 113, saw clubs area. 114. fact remains members joined destroying glass, seizing setting certainly intervene perhaps foreseeable inquire reasons each acted did. 24 own conceded, desirable, permitted given undue risk. 446, 556. While conclude omission properly drawn. First, form first Kennicott. Second, endanger allowed before stopped. warnings thus wanton. omission, coupled offended 25 sure, adapted appearance scene, and, benign reasons. Conceivably, added proviso exempting oversight Officials realistically expected consider contingency minimize risk, inevitable react understandably focusing essential plan. His provision unfortunate, hardly behavior inferred. 26 burden constituted extremely heavy one. Accepting sought thrown himself floor at. Instead, fired, Whitley. equivocal conduct. actively involved indeed help matters, indication vindictively retaliation. "froze" looked Kennicott, "we locked eyes." 119. pursuing legs. 459. conflicting, conflict favor assuming group. believing few seconds react. respond precisely manner such, IV 27 ground contends that, protected liberty interest law, observes raised below urged affirmance Appeals' decision, United New York Telephone Co., 434 159, 166, 8, 98 364, 369, 54 376 argues maintained throughout litigation "constitutional meaningful warning," derives 25, 13. 28 correct assert procedural obliged afford hearing either shot. 732, raise "substantive Amendment," Youngberg Romeo, 457 307, 309 (1982), infringed complaint alleged violations Amendments, App. 2, (First Amended Complaint), argument verdict, counsel respondents treated distinct though overlapping source substantive 21, 27. affirmance. 29 say score. concerned penal institutions, serves primary cases one, unjustified. surprising if, measures, "conduct shocks conscience" "afford[s] brutality cloak violates Rochin 342 165, 172, 173, 72 205, 210, 96 L.Ed. 183 (1952), "inconsistent contemporary standards decency" 'repugnant conscience mankind,' 106, 290, 292, Eighth. recently reserved something intentional conduct, recklessness 'gross negligence,' trigger protections Clause." Daniels Williams, 474 327, 334, 3, 662, 667, 88 662 (1986). Because involves persons enjoying unrestricted imply nothing proper answer holding, do, 30 Petitioners ask hold enjoy immunity. decline entitled merits makes 31 Reversed. 32 STEVENS join, 33 I share majority's concern disturbances unwarranted fear liability. agree threshold high. agree, however, contested "riot" lessens imposed authorities 34 majority erred, believe, developing its legal analysis employing it. especially onerous devised determining injured incorrect precedent. particularly inappropriate deciding apply preliminary issue often disputed test improperly For reasons, respectfully dissent. 35 begins acknowledging attempting "[a]n (1976)." Ante, 319. Rather, wanton" even absence Ibid.; (1977); Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 2909, 2925, 49 859 (joint Stewart, JJ.). Having teaching issue, inexplicably arrives uprising "maliciously harm," ante, 320-321, requiring "express disavowed.1 36 imposes heightened version "disturbance" "poses risks," 320. questions—whether existed posed risk—are likely hotly contested. inappropriate, least, condition choice standard, send jury, upon resolution factual disputes many themselves resolved 37 identifying high hurdle overcome seeking relief full plaintiff's injury, including apprehension factfinder satisfied There justification creating plaintiff meet merely believes caused "pose[d] staff," Determination disputed, resolves facts, role arbiter law. Byrd Blue Ridge Cooperative, 356 525, 537, 78 893, 900, 953 (1958). reciting principle won reversal below. Galloway States, 319 372, 395, 63 1077, 1089, 87 1458 (1943). If, interpretation met, improper. record discounts much theory do. 39 pays shrift contention down lethal employed. 322-323. substantial subsided, 112, 188, 193; prisoner, disruptive, 212; calmed point admit 'gone too far.' 117. asserts [t]he volatile." not, danger. put prevent harming him. 161. guard, observed protecting promised keep out. 58 (stipulation), 163. According assisting in; "milling around," waiting custody, 188. tended "situation volatile," 323, but, contrary, calm. Although sees fit emphasize repeatedly "the situation," bitterly persisted. story. 40 treatment insensitive obligation 266; ibid.; justified, unreasonable unleash clear nonparticipating 269. Insofar ever useful engaged pain, always "after-the-fact opinion" regarding contributed creation issue. 41 characterizes "oversight." 325. endorsement rendition facts. portrayed "error" cold blood. involvement when, request approached talking supply gate sick patients so-called "medical cells" removed 115-116. get key, three minutes, returned. 118. went door cellblock, responded 'No,' turned head yelled: 'Let's go, let's go. Shoot bastards!' afraid, position headed route cell. 118-119. caught movement corner eye, direction, respondent: 'I froze. him; eyes, shotgun hand, flash, thing know sitting grabbing my leg.' Losing great deal blood, crawled fell face, trying range After grabbed hair dragged downstairs. 194. lay there, another came stood shoved barrel gun pistol face. 122. lying bleeding profusely approximately hospital. suffered injury. resistance 164, 234, 233. 43 Other showed participating misconduct, received instructions, opportunity leave shooting. Neither impede 234. described "wild," "agitated, excited," emotions. 192. officer, prior entering told 'shoot asses off, gets way, him.' assault, "quiet." 193. 44 If credited witnesses, temporarily control, Klenk—"scared," "high," 117—and ready give up. block lasted minutes appeared lasting anyone. motionless bleed perilously long receiving assistance. 45 Part events light, close display fair-minded people differ question, takes preclude verdict. 46 suggests controlling irrelevant inquiry, surely mean say. drop bomb halt fistfight example, feel confident difficulty concluding, sufficiently concededly prison. disorder, mistreatment degree. like shading different conclusions, job. Properly instructed, security, presented, assessing Moreover, circumstances.2 Whether able here usurpation jury's function, affirm Appeals. ostensibly Friendly (CA2), maliciousness prerequisite violation, factor present, enable survive dismiss otherwise insufficient 1033. rejects pure stated BLACKMUN's dissent Davidson Cannon, 344, 668, ---, 677 (1986), precluding precludes join footnote.

Category: 0