Document: 503 U.S. 1 112 S.Ct. 995 117 L.Ed.2d 156 Keith J. HUDSON, Petitioner,v.Jack McMILLIAN et al. No. 90-6531. Argued Nov. 13, 1991. Decided Feb. 25, 1992. Syllabus Petitioner Hudson, a Louisiana prison inmate, testified that minor bruises, facial swelling, loosened teeth, and cracked dental plate he had suffered resulted from beating by respondent guards McMillian Woods while was handcuffed shackled following an argument with McMillian, Mezo, supervisor on duty, watched the but merely told officers "not to have too much fun." The Magistrate trying Hudson's District Court suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 found used force when there no need do so Mezo expressly condoned their actions, ruled respondents violated Eighth Amendment's prohibition cruel unusual punishments, awarded Hudson damages. of Appeals reversed, holding, inter alia, inmates alleging use excessive in violation Amendment must prove "significant injury" could not prevail because his injuries were "minor" required medical attention. Held: physical against prisoner may constitute punishment even though inmate does suffer serious injury. Pp. 5-12 . (a) Whenever officials stand accused using constituting "the unnecessary wanton infliction pain" violative Cruel Unusual Punishments Clause, core judicial inquiry is set out Whitley v. Albers, 475 312, 320-321, 106 1078, 1084-1085, 89 251: whether applied good-faith effort maintain or restore discipline, maliciously sadistically cause harm. Extending application "unnecessary standard all allegations force, disturbance riot lesser disruption, works innovation. See, e.g., Johnson Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, cert. denied, 414 1033, 94 462, 38 324. 5-7. (b) Since, approach, extent injury one factors be considered determining unnecessary, U.S., at 321, S.Ct., 1085, absence relevant to, end, inquiry. There merit respondents' assertion significant requirement mandated what this termed, Wilson Seiter, 501 ----, 111 2321, 2326, 115 271, "objective component" analysis: alleged wrongdoing objectively "harmful enough" establish constitutional violation, id., 2329. That component contextual responsive "contemporary standards decency." Estelle Gamble, 429 97, 103, 97 285, 290, 50 251. In context, such always are harm, see Whitley, 327, 1088, evident. Moreover, although reach de minimis uses provided sort repugnant conscience mankind, ibid., blows directed minimis, thus provides basis for dismissal claim. 7-10. (c) dissent's theory requires who alleges show addition pain misapplies ignores body Court's jurisprudence. did involve allegation and, respect claim, suggested departure its progeny. claims conditions confinement different kind likewise unfounded. To deny difference between punching face serving him unappetizing food ignore concepts dignity, civilized standards, humanity, decency animate Amendment. See Estelle, supra, 102, 290. P. 10-11. (d) This takes position legal conduct isolated, unauthorized, policy therefore beyond scope "punishment" prohibited inapposite record, since left intact Magistrate's determination violence issue isolated assault, finding force. rely unauthorized nature acts, they make claim addressed Appeals, presented question which granted certiorari, accordingly, before Court. 11-12. 929 1014 (CA 5 1990), reversed. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined, STEVENS, joined as Parts I, II-A, II-B, II-C. filed concurring part judgment. BLACKMUN, THOMAS, dissenting opinion, SCALIA, joined. Alvin Bronstein, petitioner. John G. Roberts, Jr., amicus curiae, supporting Harry McCall, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR case us decide We answer affirmative. 2 * At time incident subject suit, petitioner state penitentiary Angola, Louisiana. Respondents Jack Marvin Woods, Arthur served corrections security Angola facility. During early morning hours October 30, 1983, argued. Assisted then placed handcuffs shackles, took cell, walked toward penitentiary's "administrative lockdown" area. that, way there, punched mouth, eyes, chest, stomach held place kicked behind. He further App. 23. As result episode, bruises swelling face, lip. also teeth partial plate, rendering it unusable several months. 3 sued three Federal punishments seeking compensatory parties consented disposition Magistrate, actions. 26. damages $800. Id., 29. 4 Fifth Circuit (1990). It prove: (1) injury; (2) resulting "directly only clearly need"; (3) excessiveness unreasonable; (4) action constituted pain. F.2d, 1015. court determined unreasonable required. Furthermore, "[t]he qualified occasioned pain." Ibid. However, 499 1679, 114 75 (1991), determine accords Constitution's dictate shall inflicted. II 6 251 (1986), principal should govern shot guard during riot. based our settled rule " 'the constitutes forbidden Amendment.' 319, 1084 (quoting Ingraham Wright, 430 651, 670, 1401, 1412, 51 711 (1977)) (internal quotation omitted). 7 What necessary pain," we said, varies according violation. 320, 1085. For example, appropriate failed attend needs exhibited "deliberate indifference." 104, 291, (1976). State's responsibility provide care ordinarily conflict competing administrative concerns. 1084-1085. 8 By contrast, confronted balance threat unrest poses inmates, workers, administrators, visitors harm if Despite weight these concerns, decisions "in haste, pressure, frequently without luxury second chance." 1084. accordingly concluded deliberate indifference inappropriate authorities put down disturbance. Instead, measure taken inflicted suffering ultimately turns 'whether good faith discipline very purpose causing harm.' 1085 1033 (CA2), denied sub nom. Johnson, 324 (1973)). 9 Many concerns underlying holding arise whenever keep order. Whether "to discipline" through risk inmates. Both situations require act quickly decisively. Likewise, both implicate principle '[p]rison administrators accorded wide-ranging deference adoption execution policies practices judgment needed preserve internal order institutional security.' 321-322, Bell Wolfish, 441 520, 547, 99 1861, 1878, 60 447 (1979)). recognition similarities, hold Whitley: 10 derived test articulated Judge Friendly arising prisoner's been beaten harassed guard. many Courts already apply outside situation. Corselli Coughlin, 842 23, 26 (CA2 1988); Miller Leathers, 913 1087 (CA4 1990) (en banc), 498 1018, 1100 (1991); Haynes Marshall, 887 700, 703 (CA6 1989); Stenzel Ellis, 916 423, 427 (CA8 1990); Brown Smith, 813 1187, 1188 (CA11 1987). But Unwin Campbell, 863 124, 130 (CA1 1988) (rejecting absent "an actual disturbance"). A. 11 Under factor suggest "whether plausibly thought necessary" particular situation, "or instead evinced wantonness unjustified tantamount knowing willingness occur." proper evaluate relationship amount used, "reasonably perceived responsible officials," "any efforts made temper severity forceful response." inquiry, end it. 12 nonetheless assert imposed termed analysis. 271 (1991). extended involving about confinement. taking step, subjective aspect (with concerned) can distinguished objective facet same Thus, courts considering ask act[ed] sufficiently culpable mind" 13 With announced new rule. decision requirements applicable types claims. sufficient purposes Clause depends upon issue, two reasons. First, general claimant allege due regard differences objection lodged." Second, 'draw[s] meaning evolving mark progress maturing society,' admits few absolute limitations. Rhodes Chapman, 452 337, 346, 101 2392, 2399, 69 59 (1981) Trop Dulles, 356 86, 101, 78 590, 598, 630 (1958) (plurality opinion)). 14 instance, extreme deprivations conditions-of-confinement Because routine discomfort "part penalty criminal offenders pay offenses society," Rhodes, 347, "only those denying minimal life's necessities' grave form violation." Wilson, 2324 2399) citation A similar analysis applies needs. society expect prisoners will unqualified access health care, amounts "serious." 103-104, 290-291. 15 society's expectations different. When contemporary violated. 1088. true Otherwise, would permit any punishment, matter how diabolic inhuman, inflicting less than some arbitrary quantity Such unacceptable drafters today. 290 (proscribing torture barbarous primary concern drafters" Amendment); Wilkerson Utah, 130, 136, 25 L.Ed. 345 (1879) ("[I]t safe affirm others line cruelty, [the Amendment]"). 16 say every malevolent touch gives rise federal action. ("Not push shove, later seem peace judge's chambers, violates rights"). "cruel unusual" necessarily excludes 'repugnant mankind.' 1088 106, 292) marks 17 case, untenable "minor." Yet caused purposes. B 18 suggested, "[w]hether claiming mind so, required." 2322. neither nor relating dubbed 19 matters course summarizing prior holdings, beginning supra. noted, first specifically sentence. ----. might expected primacy, stated cases discussed Wilson: "incompatible society" "involv[ing] "repugnant Amendment." 102-103, quotations dissent reject. however, 20 kind, post, 24-25, n. 4, Far rejecting Whitley's insight adopted How otherwise touchstone unusual? deny, does, 'concepts decency' Jackson Bishop, 404 571, 579 1968)). C 21 argue aside Circuit, cannot "isolated unauthorized." Brief 28. contend, arose "a personal dispute correctional prisoner," policy. invoke reasoning circumstances 1032 ("[A]lthough spontaneous attack 'cruel' hope, 'unusual,' fit ordinary concept 'punishment' "); George Evans, 633 413, 416 (CA5 1980) ("[A] single, assault ."). Duckworth Franzen, 780 645, 652 (CA7 1985) ("If decided supplement official him, ."), 479 816, 107 71, 93 28 (1986). 22 take find record. assault." 27, 1. Indeed, testimony beat another shortly after finished Hudson. Lieutenant acting supervisor, "expressly instance." 23 Reversed. 24 "that indisputably risks safety staff" unless 'maliciously (citation explained justification particularly high proof exigencies present "When 'ever-present potential violent confrontation conflagration' ripens into conflict," omitted), permitted "take account real threats presents alike." Absent special circumstances, demanding 'unnecessary pain' applied. (1976) Gregg Georgia, 428 153, 173, 96 2909, 2925, 49 859 (opinion Stewart, Powell, JJ.)); 135 C.J.) ("where stake, officials' license more limited; succeed, plaintiff malicious sadistic intent"); Wyatt Delaney, 818 21, approach consistent admonition "due "no restraints," guards' 27 Although I think reliance misplaced, agree met here. Accordingly, concur II(A), II(B), II(C) 29 today appropriately puts rest seriously misguided view actionable coupled injury," attention leaves permanent marks. contrary, various kinds state-sponsored abuse—of ingeniously designed telltale injury"—entirely pale Constitution. other words, punishments" constrain lashing leather straps, whipping them rubber hoses, naked fists, shocking electric currents, asphyxiating short death, intentionally exposing undue heat cold, forcibly injecting psychosis-inducing drugs. These techniques, commonly practiced Nation's borders, hardly unknown within prisons. Campbell Grammer, 889 797, 802 1989) (use high-powered fire hoses); 574-575 1968) "Tucker Telephone," hand-cranked device generated shocks sensitive parts, flogging strap). Hutto Finney, 437 678, 682, 5, 98 2565, 2569, 57 522 (1978). 30 328, join extension malicious-and-sadistic context Nevertheless, solid showing excessive-force context. write separately highlight opinion. 31 Citing rising caseloads, respondents, represented Attorney General Louisiana, States Texas, Hawaii, Nevada, Wyoming, Florida amici curb number filings informed has effective helping control system-wide docket management problems." Amici Curiae 15. 32 audacious assumes interpretation explicit protection guided pure preferences paring petitions. Perhaps overload statutory standing sue conferred certain plaintiffs. Associated Contractors California, Inc. Carpenters, 459 519, 529-546, 103 897, 904-912, 74 723 (1983) (identifying "judge-made rules" circumscribing persons entitled Clayton Act); Blue Chip Stamps Manor Drug Stores, 421 723, 737-749, 95 1917, 1926-1932, 44 539 (1975) "policy" considerations limiting 10(b) Securities Exchange Act 1934). inherently self-interested role interpreting contours substantive right. 33 Since burden presumably worth bearing merit, States' "concern" aptly "conclusion" suits simply merit. One's experience bench teaches contrary. classes nominated exclusion courthouse, look law sensitively rather fundamental rights stake. right file redress valuable citizen. valuable. Inasmuch convicted crime imprisoned usually divested franchise, stands, words Yick Wo Hopkins, 118 356, 370, 1064, 1071, 220 (1886), most "fundamental political right, preservative rights." 34 Today's ruling, event, open floodgates statute, prisoners—alone among claimants—are exhaust remedies. Stat. 352, 1997e(a); Patsy Board Regents Florida, 457 496, 507-512, 102 2557, 2563-2565, 73 172 (1982). trial acted reasonable manner, thereby entitling immunity defense. Procunier Navarette, 434 555, 561-562, 855, 859, 55 (1978); Harlow Fitzgerald, 800, 817-818, 2727, 2737-2738, 396 (1982) (unsubstantiated malice insufficient overcome pretrial immunity). Additionally, district authorized dismiss complaint forma pauperis "if satisfied frivolous malicious." 1915(d). measures adequate docket-management problems meritless 35 read anything limit cognizable hard imagine inflictions psychological harm—without corresponding harm—that punishment. Wisniewski Kennard, 901 1276, 1277 (CA5) (guard placing revolver inmate's mouth threatening blow head off), --- 309, 262 here, feared repeated anxiety depression. 36 makes clear, prohibits "pain," "injury." Ante, 5. "Pain" surely includes notion am unaware precedent effect If anything, Sierra Club Morton, 405 727, 734, 92 1361, 1366, 636 (1972) (recognizing Article III "aesthetic" injury); Education, 347 483, 494, 686, 691, 873 (1954) school children's feelings inferiority segregation public schools). 37 sure, intimates, ante, 9, nonmeasurable minimis. Psychological often clinically diagnosed quantified well established methods, tort where regularly awarded. doubt "physical pernicious foundation reject whom SCALIA joins, dissenting. 39 certiorari "limited question," formulated parties: 40 'Did correct petitioner's Punishment single injury?' 500 1680, 41 Guided considers answers negative. affirmative, Circuit. respectfully dissent. magistrate facts emphasized 26, judges heard appeal disturb assessment, challenged sole comes us, one: subjected punishment" minimum injury? responds negative, broadly asserts wanton" automatically punishment," involved. Even goes declare, inflicts mankind." omitted).1 injured force—indeed, all—is irrelevant. 43 my view, causes insignificant immoral, tortious, criminal, remediable provisions Constitution, punishment." concluding far precedents. Until recent years, deemed sentence crime. generations, commentators regarded applying torturous meted statutes sentencing judges, generally hardship befall incarceration. Weems United States, 217 349, 544, 54 793 (1910), extensively chronicled background amendment, discussing English antecedents, Congress, construction analogous courts. Nowhere hint regulate just sentences treatment prisoners. Scholarly commentary viewed governing T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations *329 ("It certainly difficult precisely meant punishments. Probably declared statute offence punishable common law, sense. And probably punished mode offences nature. degrading State become obsolete existing constitution adopted, unusual") (emphasis added). Story, Commentaries Constitution 750-751 (1833). 45 Surely congenial years Republic today; naive harsh life. Rather, conceive protecting treatment. historically, lower routinely rejected grievances explaining regulating "[I]t function superintend penitentiaries, deliver imprisonment illegally confined." Stroud Swope, 187 850, 851-852 (CA9), 342 829, 72 53, 627 (1951). Sutton Settle, 302 286, 288 1962) (per curiam ), 372 930, 83 876, 734 (1963); ex rel. Atterbury Ragen, 237 953, 954-956 1956), 353 964, 77 1049, 914 (1957); Banning Looney, 213 771, 771 (CA10 1954) ); Sarshik Sanford, 142 676 1944). until 1976—185 adopted—that deprivation prison. 46 clear plays limited administration. involved doctors inadequately attended "acts omissions harmful evidence needs." 292 From outset, thus, specified deprivation, prisoner, narrow class "serious" mind. described twin elements "objective" "subjective" components 2324, 47 never either elements. (1981), upheld practice cell ground insufficiently serious. Only necessities," S.Ct, Similarly, violate quell riot, acts (CA2) (Friendly, J.), 48 synthesized jurisprudence last Term poor per se amounted argued culpably. argument, emphasizing satisfy (was serious?)" "subjective (did mind?)" ---- - 2324. components; suffices itself. components, course, implicit traditional jurisprudence, focuses penalties judges. pass ordering felons broken wheel, inquire legislature indifference," intentional act, satisfies higher state-of-mind threshold. encompassed unusual." cut loose historical moorings broad range deprivations, limitations Wilson. "If formally judge, mental element attributed officer qualify," 2325 original)—thus, component. sorts essence imprisonment, ensure transfer wholesale regulation life executive why, as: "[W]as serious?" formulation plainly reveals assumption analysis, court's task given "sufficiently" not, it, all.2 Given assumed little difficulty answering upholding Circuit's requirement.3 announces asserts, all. violated." Ascertaining mind, deciding unwarranted unfortunate break 52 purports derive Whitley. sum substance ' 1084). advantage, perspective, eliminating noted above, concerned component; shot, self-evidently say, today, contextual, succeed injured. stands proposition assuming existence culpability official's acts. "Whitley enough characterized 'wanton' constraints facing official." 2326 modified). describe seeks 53 compensate elimination cases, simultaneously harder indifference" baseline 2326-2327. Departure justified where, response emergency; "wanton" "maliciously harm." extends heightened present. "[m]any order." agree. attempts "keep (In hit all.) means invariably (in fact, perhaps predominantly) accompanied "malicious sadistic" extraordinary officials. suppose, driven implausibility saying D distinguish resting equally unconvincing. challenging confinement, (1981). Why here? explanation "routine 'part society.' 2399). quite gap discomfort" denial necessities" then, uncivilized (no involved), regardless puzzling. reason why readily offended officials, discrete occasion continuous over time. continuously long period greater occasion.4 attempted distinction unpersuasive: "Because 'serious.' 9. similarly expectation "unqualified" freedom keeping detention prisons about. seriousness treat strike him? 56 bottom, conclusive refute assertions notions insisted determinations "should maximum possible extent," 2399 justify required, injury." statement, central flaw reasoning. "[D]iabolic inhuman" definition inflict be, physical. "Many things—beating truncheon, water torture, shock, incessant noise, reruns 'Space 1999' agony occur yet leave enduring free pains careful marks." Williams Boles, 841 181, 183 1988). tortured like notorious Telephone" 14, type; entirely below characterize "arbitrary" explain eliminated remains deprivations. obvious similarly, "serious," necessities." are, Amendment, precedents deprivation. 58 word implications today's sweeping. replaces "necessity" "necessary," least meaningful word. wrongly decided. "double celling" "necessary" fulfill penal mission; individual cells, overcrowded. 343, 2397. prisoners' double-celling After apparently conduct. limits. expansion bounds history is, suspect, manifestation pervasive address ills society. Abusive behavior deplorable properly evokes outrage contempt. mean unconstitutional. turned into, National Code Prison Regulation. concededly "cruel" "unusual" (much punishment) acceptable recognize preventing punishing rests laws regulations States. have, seek law.5 concede available remedies constitutionally adequate, Due Process Fourteenth Cf. Davidson Cannon, 474 344, 348, 668, 88 677 (1986); Palmer, 468 517, 532-534, 104 3194, 3203-3204, 82 393 (1984); Parratt Taylor, 451 527, 541, 1908, 1916, 68 420 appropriate, limited, case. 61 conclude precedents, injury, point dictum, here While granting relief will, critical future type. "punishment," dead letter. anomaly highlights artificiality grievances, random misdeeds believe "serious deprivation" requirement. distinguishing "conditions" resurrects repudiated unsupportable unworkable practice." 1, once day, "condition" unwise, depend "specific act." McCarthy Bronson, 1737, 1742, 194 (1991) ("conditions confinement" 636(b)(1)(B) challenges ongoing incidents" specific misconduct identify"). According respondents: "Louisiana suing personnel wrongs. Parker State, 282 So.2d 486-87 (La.1973), 1093, 724, 550 (1973); Anderson Phelps, 1284, 1285 (La.Ct.App. 1st Cir.1984); McGee 417 416, 418 Cir.), writ 871 [981] (La.1982); Neathery 395 407, 410 (La.Ct.App.3d Cir.1981); Shields Through Dep't Corrections, 380 123 Cir.1979), 382 164 [ (La.1980) ]; Craft 308 295 319 (La.1975), 423 1075, 84 (1975); Lewis Listi, 377 551, 553 Cir.1979); Bastida 269 545 Cir.1972); Adams 247 149, 151 Cir.1971); St. Julian 284 Cir.1957); Nedd 281 131, 132 415 957, 1484, 572 (1974); Mack 529 446, 448 Cir.1988), 533 359 (La.1988); Walden 1224 Cir.1983), 435 (La.1983); White 387 Cir.1980); Hampton 361 257, 258 Cir.1978); Davis 452, 454 Cir.1977); Betsch [358], Cir.1977), refused, 354 1389 [1380] (La.1978); 351 1273 Jones 346 807, 808 350 671 (La.1977); Walker 794, 796 349 879 Raney 322 890 Cir.1975); Bay Maggio, 1386 Cir.1982)." 42-43, 38. disputed adequacy state-law injuries.

Category: 0