Court Opinion

ID: 9486627
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 11:54:40.446745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:50.456329
License: Public Domain

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the addition of the words “and sadistically” to the portion of the instructions cited on page 4 of the majority opinion would not have made a material difference. The district court stated the essential elements of plaintiffs excessive force claim against Barnett as follows:
Your verdict must by for plaintiff and against Defendant Terry Barnett on plaintiffs claim of excessive force, if all of the following elements have been proved by a preponderance of the evidence:
First, that ... Defendant Barnett struck plaintiff, pulled out a substantial amount of plaintiffs hair or shoved plaintiffs face into solid objects; and,
Second, the use of such force, under the circumstances, was excessive and constituted the unnecessary wanton and malicious infliction of pain upon plaintiff; and
Third, as a direct result, plaintiff was injured.
In determining whether the force [w]as excessive and constituted the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, you must consider such factors as the need for the application of force, the relationship between the need and the amount of force that were [sic] used, the extent of the injury inflicted, and whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to achieve a legitimate purpose or maliciously for the very purpose of causing harm.
If any of the above elements have not proved [sic] by the preponderance of the evidence, then your verdict must be for the defendant.
Trial Transcript Vol. Ill at 84-35.
When a person uses force in a manner that satisfies all of the elements listed above, particularly when the force is “excessive” under the circumstances and “constitute[s] the unnecessary wanton and malicious infliction of pain,” I believe, by definition, it is applied “sadistically.” In fact, the majority opinion states “one acts ‘sadistically’ by engaging in ... ‘excessive cruelty’_” Maj. op. at 872. Therefore, to add the two words “and sadistically” as required by the majority would have been mere surplusage. Moreover, Cummings is distinguishable from the present case because, there, neither the word “sadistic” nor “malicious” was used in the district court’s statement of the essential elements of the plaintiffs excessive force claim. 995 F.2d at 821. Thus, by contrast to the present ease, the elements stated by the district court in Cummings merely set forth a deliberate indifference claim. Id. at 822. Here, the essential elements stated by the district court did require a finding of “malicious” infliction of pain. Accordingly, I would affirm.