Document: 536 U.S. 730 HOPEv.PELZER ET AL. No. 01-309. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued April 17, 2002. Decided June 27, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT In 1995, petitioner Hope, then an Alabama prison inmate, was twice handcuffed to a hitching post for disruptive conduct. During 2-hour period in May, he offered drinking water and bathroom break every 15 minutes, his responses were recorded on activity log. He above shoulder height, when tried moving arms improve circulation, handcuffs cut into wrists, causing pain discomfort. After altercation with guard at chain gang's worksite June, Hope subdued, handcuffed, placed leg irons, transported back prison, where ordered take off shirt, thus exposing himself sun, spent seven hours post. While there, given one or two breaks but no breaks, taunted him about thirst. filed 42 U. S. C. § 1983 suit against three guards. Without deciding whether placing as punishment violated Eighth Amendment, Magistrate Judge found that guards entitled qualified immunity. The District entered summary judgment respondents, Eleventh Circuit affirmed. latter court answered constitutional question, finding post's use punitive purposes Amendment. nevertheless immunity, it concluded could not show, required by precedent, federal law which guards' conduct should be evaluated established cases "materially similar" facts own case. Held: defense immunity precluded phase. Pp. 736-748. (a) Hope's allegations, if true, establish Amendment violation. Among "`unnecessary wanton' inflictions [constituting cruel unusual forbidden Amendment] are those `totally without penological justification.'" Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 337, 346. This determination is made context conditions ascertaining official acted "deliberate indifference" inmates' health safety, Hudson McMillian, 503 1, 8, state mind can inferred from fact risk harm obvious, Farmer Brennan, 511 825. violation here obvious alleged. Any safety concerns had long since abated time post, because already been prison. separated work squad opportunity return. Despite clear lack emergency, respondents knowingly subjected substantial physical harm, unnecessary pain, exposure prolonged thirst taunting, deprivation created particular discomfort humiliation. 736-738. (b) Respondents may shielded liability their constitutionally impermissible actions did violate "clearly statutory rights reasonable person would have known." Harlow Fitzgerald, 457 800, 818. its assessment, erred requiring previous case similar." Qualified operates ensure before they suit, officers notice unlawful. Officers sued civil action same fair right do defendants charged under 18 242, makes crime act willfully color deprive rights. Court's opinion States Lanier, 520 259, 242 case, officials violates even novel factual situations. Indeed, expressly rejected requirement "fundamentally Accordingly, salient question asked 1995 gave warning alleged treatment unconstitutional. 739-741. (c) A officer known using cruelty inherent practice provided some addition, binding precedent them notice. Gates Collier, 501 F. 2d 1291, several forms corporal impermissible, including handcuffing inmates fences cells periods, Ort White, 813 318, 324, warned "physical abuse directed [a] prisoner after terminate[s] resistance authority constitute actionable eighth amendment violation." Relevant subsequent Department Corrections (ADOC) regulation specifying procedures included allowing inmate rejoin tells ready work. If regularly observed, provision less like kind described impermissible. But showing sham, ignore impunity, provides equally strong support conclusion fully aware wrongful also buttressed Justice specifically advised ADOC infirmity practices incidents this took place. 741-746. 240 3d 975, reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered Court, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, SCALIA, joined, p. 748. Craig T. Jones argued cause petitioner. With brief James Mendelsohn, J. Richard Cohen, Rhonda Brownstein. Austin Schlick amicus curiae urging reversal. Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorneys McCallum Boyd, Deputy Clement, Barbara L. Herwig, A. Olderman. Nathan Forrester, Alabama, respondents. Bill Pryor, Attorney General, Alyce Robertson, Margaret Fleming Ellen Leonard-Thomas, General. Gene Schaerr State Missouri et al. amici affirmance. Jeremiah W. Nixon, Missouri, R. Layton, Solicitor, Robert H. Kono, Acting Guam, Carter G. Phillips, joined respective follows: Blumenthal Connecticut, Earl I. Anzai Hawaii, Steve Indiana, P. Ieyoub Louisiana, Mike Moore Mississippi, Don Stenberg Nebraska, Frankie Sue Del Papa Nevada, Drew Edmondson Oklahoma, Hardy Myers Oregon, D. Michael Fisher Pennsylvania, Sheldon Whitehouse Rhode Island, Mark Shurtleff Utah, Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., West Virginia.* JUSTICE STEVENS Court. 1 Appeals Larry former Limestone Prison sanction Because supported earlier facts, held therefore affirmed favor. We granted certiorari determine Appeals' holding comports our decision 259 (1997). 2 * only followed chaining another squads. It prisoners "hitching posts" either refused otherwise disrupted squads.1 occasions. On May 11, while working gang near interstate highway, got argument inmate. Both men taken released later, captain determined caused other these offers slightly taller than height grew tired being so high. Whenever 3 7, punished more severely. nap during morning bus ride worksite, arrived prompt responding order get bus. An exchange vulgar remarks led wrestling match guard. Four intervened, subdued him, irons put remained shirtless all day sun burned skin.2 attached approximately hours. 7-hour period, once breaks.3 At point, According affidavit: "[The guard] first dogs, brought cooler closer me, removed lid, kicked over, spilling onto ground." App. 11. 4 Rev. Stat. 1979, 1983, Northern involved incident, whom June. referred who treated responsive affidavits motion judgment. "the very restraining bar form punishment" immunity.4 Supplemental Pet. Cert. 21. agreed, 5 975 (2001). Before reaching issue, however, bypassed. Nevertheless, applying concerning stated "`the government official's must preexisting, mandatory,'" established, "`abstractions,'" "`materially similar'" front us." Id., 981. precedents primarily relied — 318 (CA11 1987), 1291 (CA5 1974) "[t]hough analogous," similar' situation.'" 3d, review Circuit's holding. 534 1073 (2002). II 6 threshold inquiry undertake analysis plaintiff's Saucier Katz, 533 194, 201 policy cuffing similar stationary object surpasses necessary quell threat restore Amendment." 980-981. respondents' submission ended shackling offering return work, instead purpose punitive,5 circumstances confinement aware. Moreover, condemning practices6 results (DOJ) report Alabama's systematic improper punishment.7 agree attachment 7 "`[T]he wanton infliction ... constitutes Amendment.'" Whitley Albers, 475 312, 319 (1986) (some internal quotation marks omitted). said "[a]mong `unnecessary 346 (1981). making conditions, we ascertain safety. 8 (1992). infer existence subjective obvious. 825, 842 (1994). As emergency situation, restricted position heat humiliation.8 "basic concept underlying Amendment[, which] nothing dignity man." Trop Dulles, 356 86, 100 (1958). amounts gratuitous "wanton unnecessary" clearly prohibits. III 9 participation conduct, damages 818 (1982). assessing met test, situation." rigid gloss standard, though precedent,9 consistent cases. 10 explained, "to unlawful." S., 206. For contours "must sufficiently understand what doing right. say protected unless has previously unlawful, see Mitchell [v. Forsyth, 472 511,] 535, n. 12; light pre-existing unlawfulness apparent." Anderson Creighton, 483 635, 640 (1987). 11 criminal offense defined 242. Section "willfully" Constitution. (1997), defendant "fair warning" deprived victim right, standard determining adequacy established" litigation 1983.10 12 indictment charge allegedly identified any involving situation "`fundamentally issue. 263 (citing 73 1380, 1393 (CA6 1996)). assumed degree "`substantially higher used judge immunity'" 1983. 263. reversed, explaining identical standard. pointed out "upheld convictions 241 despite notable distinctions between prior decisions issue rights." 269. explained: 13 "This say, course, single points level specificity sufficient instance. circumstances, leaves open general rule applies type high particularity necessary. statements inherently incapable giving warning, instances decisional apply clarity specific `the [not] unlawful,' Anderson, supra, 640." 270-271 (citation 14 Our Lanier still circumstances. Although provide especially such finding. true facts. pursuant ought now turn. IV "unnecessar[ily] wanton[ly] inflicted pain," Whitley, (internal omitted), See Part II, supra. Arguably, Regardless, regulation, DOJ informing readily conclude Harlow, 16 Cases decided Fifth 1981 today. Bonner Prichard, 661 1206 1981). cases, 1974, reviewed number violations administration Mississippi's prisons. 1291. That squarely "forms run afoul [and] offend contemporary concepts decency, human dignity, precepts civilization profess possess." 1306. "handcuffing fence periods time, forcing stand, sit lie crates, stumps, maintain awkward positions periods." Ibid. does not, suggest, lessen force respect time. Nor, providing administering past misconduct, there reason draw distinction contrary exposes danger rigid, overreliance similarity. Government submits curiae: "No turned bars cells, rather specially designed metal designated shackling. anything, highlights problem." Brief Amicus Curiae 22. Gates, apparent 17 reasoning, holding, 1987 sent message Circuit. officer's temporary denials repeatedly share assigned farm "should viewed strict sense, coercive measures undertaken obtain compliance rule, i. e., perform duties." 325. "The motive encourage comply rules receive everyone else." cautioned, might present "if deny [Ort] refusal work." 326. So too occurred method coercion reached point severity recalcitrant prisoner's risk. identical, Ort's premise 324. applicability restrained until willing Rather, threatened health. crossed line permissible. Constitution promulgated 1993.11 authorizes refuses squad. log completed each detailing minutes. Such maintained petitioner's record contains indicates periodic contemplated made. 43-48. states "will allowed join squad" whenever "that go 103. findings Hopper, Supp. 1210, 1244-1246 (MD Ala. 1998), well indicate important frequently ignored corrections officers. effectively give keys analogous upheld Ort, course tends prove merely character 19 law. "a known," 818, unconstitutionality conducted study 1994 979. findings, noted ADOC's consistently failed immediately releasing agrees constituted punishment. cease meet standards. replied thought permissibly "`to preserve security discipline.'" response, informed that, "`[a]lthough warrant drastic staff, experts "rail" systematically relatively trivial offenses. Therefore, indicating DOJ's views communicated lends view realized prohibition 20 protection way antithetical hitched extended painful, both degrading dangerous. done necessity, Even regarding constitutionality practice, warning," 271, preclude stage. V 21 response THOMAS' thoughtful dissent, make following observations. granting favor officers, sufficiency pleadings raise genuine possibility named responsible acts All questions raised (the plaintiff entered) application available "it unlawful confronted." 202. officers' opposition likewise addressed legal established. resulting focus subject charged. take, pass upon, extent charged, proved. Nothing forecloses ground upon Appeals. 22 Second, address assumption field discipline occasion apparently inflict discomfort, justification continuing 980 (on neither "refus[e] encourag[e] refuse work"). itself suffice unconstitutional act: "We find extending immediate continued "[t]his exacerbated proper clothing, water, breaks," ibid., embellishment basis decision, adequately rests sufficed 23 Third, objective test understand, significance judicial function part Judiciary's structure. unreported opinions cited distinguishable terms.12 regardless, precedents13 2d, 1306, time" unconstitutional, 326, suggested (by refusing water) enforce on-the-spot discipline. vitality seriously questioned context, 737 319; 346). 24 25 ordered. Notes: Brown, K. Green, Steven Shapiro American Civil Liberties Union judgment, most favorable nonmoving party. 977 2001) (case below). sameSaucier referenced 1210 1998). 978, 6. appropriate classaction prisoners, discusses allegations length. 1247-1248. papers, Austin, See, e. g., Plaintiff's Preliminary Response Defendants' Special Report, Record 30; Order, 61. grant reference appropriate. horizontal "`made sturdy, nonflexible material,'" 45 57 inches ground. Inmates standing remain entire Most shackled hands close together face level. 1241-1242. repeated complaint strain produced muscles addition sunburn, dehydration, muscle aches, heats shackle itself. Several chafed skin placement post."Id., 1248. maintained. 977, 21-27 conclusion, stated: "While DOC claims evidence suggests First, never site, job. There record, claiming encouraged solution problem ask car driven cuffed Given improbable said, `I want work,' left drive site. likely detail returned teach lesson." "Since abolishing pillory over century ago, system justice moved away posts InGates (5th Cir. 1974), regard `handcuffing time' punishments, `[w]e difficulty possess.' 1306." throughout belowId., 979, 8. awareness attributable individual respondent considering pattern generally received InAustin examples humiliating denial breaks. One "was permitted restroom change clothing four one-half defecated himself." 1246. "Moreover, certain denied requests access toilet facilities, suffering dehydration...." 1247. See,e. Suissa Fulton County, 74 266-270 1996); Lassiter A&M Univ. Bd. Trustees, 28 1146, 1150 1994); Hill Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center, 40 1176, 1185 1994). "[T]he `clearly established' different `fair relates `made specific' validly role significance; serve objective, effect simply adaptation (and, ultimately, governments) consequences individuals traditionally possessed vague statutes. To require something clearer would, then, call beyond warning.'" added request 100-106 decisions, choice restrained. SeeWhitson Gillikin, CV-93-H-1517-NE (ND Ala., Jan. 24, 1994), 4, 84; Dale Murphy, CV-85-1091-H-S (SD Feb. 1986), 2; Ashby Dees, CV-94-U-0605-NE Dec. others, regular Lane Findley, CV-93-C-1741-S Aug. 9; Williamson CV-92-H-675-N 18, 1993), Hollis Folsom, CV-94-T-0052-N Nov. 9. Finally, Vinson Thompson, CV-94-A-268-N 9, 2. Circuits, presumably authorize 26 CHIEF SCALIA join, dissenting. 27 today subjects based alleged, methods jurisprudence head. Petitioner file Alabama. Nor sue looking bar.1 chose lawsuit guards: Officer McClaran, Sergeant Pelzer, Lieutenant Jim Gates. 2001).2 strange none bother mention nature omission glaring telling. When examines parties action, opposed guards, becomes far compelling. 29 imprecise account requires recounted. that: (1) McClaran affixed bar;3 (2) date, bar;4 (3) bar.5 sum substance respondents.6 30 participated incident appalls Court.7 And events recounted attaching bar. contended looked supervised Second Affidavit Ala.), Record, Doc. 32. ever claimed keeping hours, removing shirt,8 denying taunting thirst, dogs plain view. ibid. relevance analysis, see, ante, 738, 744, escapes me. 31 Then cannot arguably gleaned record. instance, 735, bar, date. matter fact, below breaks." photographs show wearing t-shirt, revealing minimum "all day." Exhs. 3-5, 32; id., (verifying "taken [he] 7"). 32 Once understands "obvious." Ante, 738. What "obvious," explanation how woefully incomplete. recounts concludes "[t]he `basic Amendment[,] [which] man.'" (quoting (1958)). fails explain Pelzer involvement whatsoever affixing 7. reasoning applied similarly inadequate bore responsibility supposedly renders "obvious."9 33 grievances mistreatment invented presents simple question: Was mere (or, ordering bar) Amendment? answer simple: Obviously not. 34 correctly "`clearly known.'" 739 (1982)). discuss principles. protects plainly incompetent law." Malley Briggs, 335, 341 (1986). confronted," apply. 202 if, hand, "officers competence disagree th[e] recognized." Malley, 341. 35 evaluating properly "[i]t analyze [the courts violations], materially 981 suffer "cruel punishments," Const., Amdt. extremely abstract vast majority text itself, applicable situation.10 look [has] particularized, hence relevant, sense: right." 36 conducting inquiry, crucial relevant best indication situation. If, "various agreed [constitutes violation] presented hand," Saucier, 202, compelling 37 passed legality behavior Certain obviously assertion overcome yet Or, puts it, "officials circumstances." 741. 38 argues improperly imposed "rigid standard," 739, overcome, suggestion wrong. imposes plaintiffs seeking defeat Priester Riviera Beach, 208 919, 926 2000) (stating hazy border excessive acceptable official] know violating case-law point" omitted)); Smith Mattox, 127 1416, 1419 1997) (noting demonstrating lies core [Constitution] prohibits official, notwithstanding caselaw"); Univ., 1150, 1994) ("[O]ccasionally words statute will enough absence law"). 39 Similarly, unfair read adopting gloss" here. Nowhere petitioner, produce addressing (and sensibly) ("It `materially us"). sure, believe Appeals, therefore, implicitly abandoned jurisprudence. I, omitted discussion much simpler reason: weak, force,'" Priester, Smith, 1419), worth mentioning. B 41 Turning merits notes, disciplinary 733. Previous warn let alone illegality outcome claim example, year place, five scuffled (Aug. reasoned measured potentially volatile result subjecting offending experienced inside institution." "substantial justification" 43 attempt distinguish grounds "offered breaks" 747, Reply 16, 5. reasons: undisputed minutes day; mentioned, 44 Lane, dismissed prisoner, leave squad, eight Temperatures 95 degrees food, opportunities facilities. Whitson (Jan. 81. "suffered lacerations, swelling arms." 85. defendants' "there identifying [their behavior] unconstitutional." 88. Federal Courts (fence); (restraining bar); 1993) 1986) (light pole).11 By contrast, unable issued engaging 46 authority, I impossible "plainly incompetent" "knowingly violat[ing] law" reasonably competent attempting obey recently colleagues' often place guidance, stands policy. C 47 concluding understandably unwilling hold Amendment.12 742. 741, Petitioner's come suggesting knew serious harm" him. 847 amounted "gratuitous `wanton unnecessary' curious decline legitimate purpose: encouraging duty. 48 "obvious" claims, wonders opposite turn, realize grasp D 49 Unable base known,'" 742 818), precedents, relies "binding [Department Justice] post," 741-742. sources reverse order. 50 demonstrate begin with, concedes Department's recommendation stop small town Capshaw, 745. event, extraordinarily well-informed dispute violation, 51 today; weighs authorized affix "disruptive squad." 102. rely validity duly instructing attach specified Wilson Layne, 526 603, 617 (1999) (crediting reliance Marshals Service "important" warranted area undeveloped"). And, recounts, entering duty (May 11) arriving site (June 7). 734. 52 "aware conduct" precisely abide set forth regulation. 744. taking am loss filled 734, complains exists stay bathroom-break Petitioner, supervising there. 53 observes "`will squad'" "`that work,'" 744 103), again observe requirement. 54 precedent" 741-743, insufficient ran inmate's admits Instead, "reasoning" "gave permissible." 743. least abundantly "have amount valid rules" "maliciously sadistically." 55 notes "might decision" dicta establishing within walls. 56 Admittedly, relies, point. listed many unacceptable brutality abuse" Mississippi Others milk magnesia punishment, depriving mattresses, hygienic materials, adequate shooting around keep moving. "no reasonable, bright-line forbidding referring "for time," considered "long hour, surrounding incidents. suitable bid induce rules. intervening years further clarifying area. interpreting noted: "There blanket signal Commissioner [let ordinary officers] Fountain Talley, 104 1345, 1354 2000). 58 stood decided. 825 (1994), elucidated measuring indifference," liable humane knows disregards safety; inference drawn exists, inference." 837. consider element, 1995. Also, recent rejecting prisoners' authorizing seems sentence plucked 21-year-old 59 60 unfortunate holds certainly anticipated non-existent foregoing reasons, affirm respectfully dissent. term apparatus "restraining bar." Dept. Admin. Reg. 429, (Oct. 26, reprinted 102 connection fight later withdrew Report Motion Summary Judgment pp. 1-2, 5-6, 2-3, 3. 3-4. confusion actually "believe[s]" so,id., 3, "Institutional Incident Report" written Keith Dempsey Exh. acknowledged second affidavit. Consequently, assume Additionally, "Officer Gates" mentioned McClaran's noting, vigorously same, i, somewhat incredible claim. Defendant's ("[T]he remaining Defendants 1997 Defendant incident"); note shirt. affidavit, 2, appended exhibits 32, verified 7,"id., 5, shirt removed, all, effort rehabilitate falls outside scope presented. Seeante, 746. whether, violated. defendant's allegation B's absent A's Similarly here, analyzing CfSaucier 201-202 (2001) (discounting principle police Fourth standards reasonableness). serves undermine analysis. appears suggest 12. 756, result, law, nowhere explains supposed figure permissible short incredible. continue "[c]onditions recognized sense term, sentence."Farmer 859 (1994) (THOMAS, concurring judgment). think, original matter, "punishment" recognize embraced regulate sentence, Estelle Gamble, 429 97 (1976) note, overruling dubious expansion Farmer, 861-862

Category: 1