Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Harry L. Jackson v. R.E. Culbertson, Sheriff
984 F.2d 699
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1993-03-04
- Topic
- general
noting that an excessive force claim by a pretrial detainee is governed by the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment | noting that an excessive-force claim by a pretrial detainee is governed by the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment | explaining that a prisoner need not show significant injury but must have suffered at least some injury | pre-Kingsley decision finding that spraying a pretrial detainee with a fire extinguisher was not excessive force nor “repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” | spraying inmate with a fire extinguisher after the fire was out was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind where the inmate suffered no physical injury | spraying inmate with a fire extinguisher after the fire was out was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind where the inmate suffered no physical injury | spraying inmate with a fire extinguisher after the fire was out was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind where the inmate suffered no physical injury | excessive force claim for spraying with a fire hose frivolous where prisoner suffered no injury | Although plaintiff “need not show a significant injury, he must have suffered at least some injury.” | “Because he suffered no injury . . . [there] was a de minimis use of physical force . . . not repugnant to the conscience of mankind”; emphasis added | “Because he suffered no injury, we find that the spraying of Jackson with the fire extinguisher was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” | “Because he suffered no injury, we find that the spraying of Jackson with the fire extinguisher was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind.” | single use of force without injury was de minimis | single use of force without injury was de minimis
Citator
- Cited by
- 33 opinions
Richard F. Baker, Dist. Atty.'s Office, Roger N. Fry, ACDA, Thomas F. Rugg, 1st Asst., Beaumont, TX, for R.E. Culbertson, M. Trahan, G. Wiggins and K. Kaufman.
[2] Jackson, previously a prisoner confined in the Jefferson County Jail, based his excessive use of force claim on the following facts. While in prison, Jackson started a fire with a match and the core of a role of toilet paper. The fire alarm went off, prompting prison officials to take action. One official arrived with a fire extinguisher. The fire had already gone out by the time he arrived; nonetheless, the official sprayed the remaining ashes, as well as Jackson and two other inmates. Jackson testified at hisSpearshearing that he did not receive any injuries.
[3] Because our precedent at the time of the magistrate's decision required a "significant injury,"see Johnson v. Morel,876 F.2d 477,480(5th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (under the Fourth Amendment);Oliver v. Collins,914 F.2d 56,59(5th Cir. 1990) (under the Eighth Amendment);Shillingford v. Holmes,634 F.2d 263(5th Cir. 1981) (under the Due Process Clause), the magistrate found this claim to be frivolous. However, after the magistrate's decision, the Supreme Court held that a significant injury is not required for an excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment.Hudson v. McMillian,___ U.S. ___,112 S.Ct. 995,117 L.Ed.2d 156(1992). Although, Jackson need not show a significant injury, he must have suffered at least some injury. The Court inHudsonalso stated that
The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional recognitionde minimisuses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort "repugnant to the conscience of mankind."
[4]Id.___ U.S. at ___,112 S.Ct. at 1000. Apparently, Jackson was a pretrial detainee so that his claim is governed by the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment. Regardless, the standard is the same.See Valencia v. Wiggins,981 F.2d 1440(5th Cir. 1993) (holding thatHudson'stest for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment applies to a pretrial detainee's excessive force claim under the Due Process Clause).
[5] Because he suffered no injury, we find that the spraying of Jackson with the fire extinguisher was ade minimisuse of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind.Cf. Olson v. Coleman,804 F. Supp. 148,150(D.Kan. 1992) (finding a single blow to the head causing a contusion to bede minimisand not repugnant);Candelaria v. Coughlin,787 F. Supp. 368,374(S.D.N.Y. 1992) (allegation of single incident of guard using force to choke inmate wasde minimis),aff'd,979 F.2d 845(2d Cir. 1992). The dismissal of Jackson's claims under § 1915(d) is therefore AFFIRMED.Page 1402