Hudson v McMillian.rtf - Hudson v McMillian 503 U.S 1(1992 112 S.Ct 995 117 L.Ed.2d 156 60 USLW 4151 KeyCite Yellow Flag Negative Treatment 1 Overruling

Hudson v McMillian.rtf - Hudson v McMillian 503 U.S 1(1992...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 13 pages.

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156, 60 USLW 4151 KeyCite Yellow Flag - Negative Treatment 1 Overruling Recognized by Savage v. Gelok, D.Idaho, August 14, 2017 112 S.Ct. 995 Supreme Court of the United States Keith J. HUDSON , Petitioner, v. Jack McMILLIAN et al. No. 90–6531. | Argued Nov. 13, 1991. | Decided Feb. 25, 1992. Prisoner brought federal rights suit, alleging his Eighth Amendment rights were violated by beating he received from state correctional officers. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Stephen C. Riedlinger , United States Magistrate Judge, entered judgment in favor of prisoner, and correctional officers appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 929 F.2d 1014, reversed, holding that prisoner had no claim because his injuries were minor and required no medical attention. Prisoner petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court, Justice O’Connor , held that use of excessive physical force against prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though prisoner does not suffer serious injury. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed. Justice Stevens joined as to Parts I, II-A, II-B and II-C, and filed opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Blackmun filed opinion concurring in judgment. Justice Thomas filed dissenting opinion, which Justice Scalia joined. Opinion on remand, 962 F.2d 522 . **996 Syllabus * Petitioner Hudson , a Louisiana prison inmate, testified that minor bruises, facial swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate he had suffered resulted from a beating by respondent prison guards McMillian and Woods while he was handcuffed and shackled following an argument with McMillian , and that respondent Mezo, a supervisor on duty, watched the beating but merely told the officers “not to have too much fun.” The Magistrate trying Hudson’s District Court suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 found that the officers used force when there was no need to do so and that Mezo expressly condoned their actions, ruled that respondents had violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, and awarded Hudson damages. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, inter alia, that inmates alleging use of excessive force in violation of the Amendment must prove “significant injury” and that Hudson could not prevail because his injuries were “minor” and required no medical attention. Held: The use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury. Pp. 998–1002. (a) Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force constituting “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” violative of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320–321, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1084–1085, 89 L.Ed.2d 251: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore *2 discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. Extending Whitley ‘s
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 13 pages?

  • Spring '14
  • GNGUYEN

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes