Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Hudson v. McMillian
112 S. Ct. 995
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1992-02-25
- Topic
- general
holding that “cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force” | holding that excessive force against a prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment even in the absence of significant injury | holding that excessive force against a prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment even in the absence of significant injury | concluding that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even where prisoner is not seriously injured | concluding that the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even where prisoner is not seriously injured | holding that “cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force” | holding that "cruel and unusual punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force" | holding that malicious or sadistic use of force with intent to harm violates the Eighth Amendment | holding that guards violated Hudson’s Eighth Amendment rights when they gratuitously punched and hit him, causing only minor injuries, while escorting him between prison facilities | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” | holding that serious 24 injury is not necessary to establish excessive force under the Eighth Amendment | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (citation omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotations omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotations omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotations omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotations omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove...violates a prisoner's constitutional rights” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotations omitted) | holding that “[n]ot every push or shove . . . violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights” (internal quotations omitte
Citator
- Cited by
- 3974 opinions
HUDSON v. McMILLIAN,503 U.S. 1(1992)
112 S.Ct. 995
HUDSONv. McMILLIAN
No. 90-6531
Argued November 13, 1991
Decided February 25, 1992
(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 inWhitley v. Albers,475 U.S. 312,320-321: whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restorePage 2discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. ExtendingWhitley'sapplication of the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" standard to all allegations of force, whether the prison disturbance is a riot or a lesser disruption, works no innovation.See, e.g., Johnson v. Glick,481 F.2d 1028,cert. denied,414 U.S. 1033. Pp. 5-7.
(b) Since, under theWhitleyapproach, the extent of injury suffered by an inmate is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether the use of force is wanton and unnecessary,475 U.S., at 321, the absence of serious injury is relevant to, but does not end, theEighth Amendmentinquiry. There is no merit to respondents' assertion that a significant injury requirement is mandated by what this Court termed, inWilson v. Seiter,501 U.S. 97,103, the "objective component" ofEighth Amendmentanalysis: whether the alleged wrongdoing is objectively "harmful enough" to establish a constitutional violation,id., at 303. That component is contextual, and responsive to "contemporary standards of decency."Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97,103. In the excessive force context, such standards always are violated when prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm,see Whitley,475 U.S., at 327, whether or not significant injury is evident. Moreover, although the Amendment does not reachdeminimisuses of physical force, provided that such use is not of a sort repugnant to the conscience of mankind,ibid., the blows directed at Hudson are notde minimis, and the extent of his injuries thus provides no basis for dismissal of his § 1983 claim. Pp. 7-10.
(c) The dissent's theory that Wilson requires an inmate who alleges excessive force to show significant injury in addition to the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain misappliesWilson, and ignores the body of this Court'sEighth Amendmentjurisprudence.Wilsondid not involve an allegation of excessive force and, with respect to the "objective component" of anEighth Amendmentclaim, suggested no departure fromEstelleand its progeny. The dissent's argument that excessive force claims and conditions of confinement claims are no different in kind is likewise unfounded. To deny the difference between punching a prisoner in the face and serving him unappetizing food is to ignore the concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency that animate theEighth Amendment.See Estelle,supra, at 102. Pp. 10-11.
(d) This Court takes no position on respondents' legal argument that their conduct was isolated, unauthorized, and against prison policy, and therefore beyond the scope of "punishment" prohibited by theEighth Amendment. That argument is inapposite on the record, since the Court of Appeals left intact the Magistrate's determination that the violence at issue was not an isolated assault, and ignores the Magistrate's finding that supervisor Mezo expressly condoned the use of force. Moreover, to the extent that respondents rely on the unauthorizedPage 3nature of their acts, they make a claim not addressed by the Court of Appeals, not presented by the question on which this Court granted certiorari, and, accordingly, not before this Court. Pp. 11-12.929 F.2d 1014(CA 5 1990), reversed.
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, and in which STEVENS, J., joined as to Parts I, II-A, II-B, and II-C. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 12. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 13. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined, post, p. 17.
I
At the time of the incident that is the subject of this suit, petitioner Keith Hudson was an inmate at the state penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. Respondents Jack McMillian, Marvin Woods, and Arthur Mezo served as corrections security officers at the Angola facility. During the early morning hours of October 30, 1983, Hudson and McMillian argued. Assisted by Woods, McMillian then placed Hudson in handcuffs and shackles, took the prisoner out of his cell, and walked him toward the penitentiary's "administrative lockdown" area. Hudson testified that, on the way there, McMillian punched Hudson in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach, while Woods held the inmate in place and kicked and punched him from behind. He further testified that Mezo, the supervisor on duty, watched the beating, but merely told the officers "not to have too much fun." App. 23. As a result of this episode, Hudson suffered minor bruises and swelling of his face, mouth, and lip. The blows also loosened Hudson's teeth and cracked his partial dental plate, rendering it unusable for several months.
Hudson sued the three corrections officers in Federal District Court under42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of theEighth Amendment'sprohibition on cruel and unusual punishments and seeking compensatory damages. The parties consented to disposition of the case before a Magistrate, who found that McMillian and Woods used force when there was no need to do so, and that Mezo expressly condoned their actions. App. 26. The Magistrate awarded Hudson damages of $800.Id., at 29.Page 5
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed.929 F.2d 1014(1990). It held that inmates alleging use of excessive force in violation of theEighth Amendmentmust prove: (1) significant injury; (2) resulting "directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need"; (3) the excessiveness of which was objectively unreasonable; and (4) that the action constituted an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Id. at 1015. The court determined that respondents' use of force was objectively unreasonable because no force was required. Furthermore, "[t]he conduct of McMillian and Woods qualified as clearly excessive and occasioned unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."Ibid. However, Hudson could not prevail on hisEighth Amendmentclaim, because his injuries were "minor" and required no medical attention.Ibid.
We granted certiorari,499 U.S. 958(1991), to determine whether the "significant injury" requirement applied by the Court of Appeals accords with the Constitution's dictate that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted.
II
InWhitley v. Albers,475 U.S. 312(1986), the principal question before us was what legal standard should govern theEighth Amendmentclaim of an inmate shot by a guard during a prison riot. We based our answer on the settled rule that "`the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain . . . constitutes cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by theEighth Amendment.'"Id., at 319 (quotingIngraham v.Wright,430 U.S. 651,670(1977)) (internal quotation omitted).
What is necessary to establish an "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," we said, varies according to the nature of the alleged constitutional violation.475 U.S., at 320. For example, the appropriate inquiry when an inmate alleges that prison officials failed to attend to serious medical needs is whether the officials exhibitedPage 6"deliberate indifference." SeeEstelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97,104(1976). This standard is appropriate because the State's responsibility to provide inmates with medical care ordinarily does not conflict with competing administrative concerns.Whitley, supra, at 320.
By contrast, officials confronted with a prison disturbance must balance the threat unrest poses to inmates, prison workers, administrators, and visitors against the harm inmates may suffer if guards use force. Despite the weight of these competing concerns, corrections officials must make their decisions "in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance."475 U.S., at 320. We accordingly concluded inWhitleythat application of the deliberate indifference standard is inappropriate when authorities use force to put down a prison disturbance. Instead, "the question whether the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering ultimately turns on `whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.'"Id., at 320-321 (quotingJohnson v. Glick,481 F.2d 1028,1033(CA2), cert. deniedsub nom. John v. Johnson,414 U.S. 1033(1973)).
Many of the concerns underlying our holding inWhitleyarise whenever guards use force to keep order. Whether the prison disturbance is a riot or a lesser disruption, corrections officers must balance the need "to maintain or restore discipline" through force against the risk of injury to inmates. Both situations may require prison officials to act quickly and decisively. Likewise, both implicate the principle that "`[p]rison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that, in their judgment, are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security."475 U.S., at 321-322(quotingBell v. Wolfish,441 U.S. 520,547(1979)). In recognition of these similarities, we hold that, wheneverPage 7prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force in violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out inWhitley:whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.
ExtendingWhitley'sapplication of the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" standard to all allegations of excessive force works no innovation. This Court derived theWhitleytest from one articulated by Judge Friendly inJohnson v. Glick, supra, a case arising out of a prisoner's claim to have been beaten and harassed by a guard. Moreover, many Courts of Appeals already apply theWhitleystandard to allegations of excessive force outside of the riot situation.See Corselli v. Coughlin,842 F.2d 23,26(CA2 1988);Miller v. Leathers,913 F.2d 1085,1087(CA4 1990) (en banc),cert.denied,498 U.S. 1109(1991);Haynes v. Marshall,887 F.2d 700,703(CA6 1989);Stenzel v. Ellis,916 F.2d 423,427(CA8 1990);Brown v.Smith,813 F.2d 1187,1188(CA11 1987).But see Unwin v. Campbell,863 F.2d 124,130(CA1 1988) (rejecting application ofWhitleystandard absent "an actual disturbance").
A
Under theWhitleyapproach, the extent of injury suffered by an inmate is one factor that may suggest "whether the use of force could plausibly have been thought necessary" in a particular situation, "or instead evinced such wantonness with respect to the unjustified infliction of harm as is tantamount to a knowing willingness that it occur."Whitley,475 U.S., at 321. In determining whether the use of force was wanton and unnecessary, it may also be proper to evaluate the need for application of force, the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the threat "reasonably perceived by the responsible officials," and "any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response."Ibid. The absence of serious injury is therefore relevant to theEighth Amendmentinquiry, but does not end it.Page 8
Respondents nonetheless assert that a significant injury requirement of the sort imposed by the Fifth Circuit is mandated by what we have termed the "objective component" ofEighth Amendmentanalysis. SeeWilson v. Seiter,501 U.S. 294,298(1991).Wilsonextended the deliberate indifference standard applied toEighth Amendmentclaims involving medical care to claims about conditions of confinement. In taking this step, we suggested that the subjective aspect of anEighth Amendmentclaim (with which the Court was concerned) can be distinguished from the objective facet of the same claim. Thus, courts considering a prisoner's claim must ask both if "the officials act[ed] with a sufficiently culpable state of mind" and if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively "harmful enough" to establish a constitutional violation.Id., at 298, 303.
With respect to the objective component of anEighth Amendmentviolation,Wilsonannounced no new rule. Instead, that decision suggested a relationship between the requirements applicable to different types ofEighth Amendmentclaims. What is necessary to show sufficient harm for purposes of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause depends upon the claim at issue, for two reasons. First, "[t]he general requirement that anEighth Amendmentclaimant allege and prove the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain should . . . be applied with due regard for differences in the kind of conduct against which anEighth Amendmentobjection is lodged."Whitley, supra, 320. Second, theEighth Amendment'sprohibition of cruel and unusual punishments "`draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,'" and so admits of few absolute limitations.Rhodes v.Chapman,452 U.S. 337,346(1981) (quotingTrop v. Dulles,356 U.S. 86,101(1958) (plurality opinion)).
The objective component of anEighth Amendmentclaim is therefore contextual and responsive to "contemporary standards of decency."Estelle, supra, at 103. For instance,Page 9extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim. Because routine discomfort is "part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society,"Rhodes, supra, at 347, "only those deprivations denying "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" are sufficiently grave to form the basis of anEighth Amendmentviolation."Wilson, supra, 298 (quotingRhodes,supra, at 347) (internal citation omitted). A similar analysis applies to medical needs. Because society does not expect that prisoners will have unqualified access to health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to anEighth Amendmentviolation only if those needs are "serious." SeeEstelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. at 103-104.
In the excessive force context, society's expectations are different. When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. SeeWhitley, supra, at 327. This is true whether or not significant injury is evident. Otherwise, theEighth Amendmentwould permit any physical punishment, no matter how diabolic or inhuman, inflicting less than some arbitrary quantity of injury. Such a result would have been as unacceptable to the drafters of theEighth Amendmentas it is today.See Estelle, supra, at 102 (proscribing torture and barbarous punishment was "the primary concern of the drafters" of theEighth Amendment);Wilkerson v. Utah,99 U.S. 130,136(1879) ("[I]t is safe to affirm that punishments of torture . . . and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by [theEighth Amendment]").
That is not to say that every malevolent touch by a prison guard gives rise to a federal cause of action. SeeJohnson v. Glick,481 F.2d, at 1033("Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge's chambers, violates a prisoner's constitutional rights"). TheEighth Amendment'sprohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishments necessarily excludes from constitutionalPage 10recognitionde minimisuses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort "`repugnant to the conscience of mankind.'"Whitley,475 U.S. at 327(quotingEstelle, supra, at 106) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, the Fifth Circuit found Hudson's claim untenable because his injuries were "minor."929 F.2d, at 1015. Yet the blows directed at Hudson, which caused bruises, swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate, are notde minimisforEighth Amendmentpurposes. The extent of Hudson's injuries thus provides no basis for dismissal of his § 1983 claim.
B
The dissent's theory thatWilsonrequires an inmate who alleges excessive use of force to show serious injuryin addition tothe unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain misappliesWilsonand ignores the body of ourEighth Amendmentjurisprudence. As we have already suggested, the question before the Court inWilsonwas "[w]hether a prisoner claiming that conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment must show a culpable state of mind on the part of prison officials and, if so, what state of mind is required."Wilson, supra, at 296.Wilsonpresented neither an allegation of excessive force nor any issue relating to what was dubbed the "objective component" of anEighth Amendmentclaim.Wilsondid touch on these matters in the course of summarizing our prior holdings, beginning withEstelle v. Gamble, supra.Estelle, we noted, first applied the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to deprivations that were not specifically part of the prisoner's sentence.Wilson, supra, at 297. As might be expected from this primacy,Estellestated the principle underlying the cases discussed inWilson:punishments "incompatible with the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society" or "involv[ing] the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" are "repugnant to theEighth Amendment."Estelle, supra, at 102-103 (internalPage 11quotations omitted). This is the same rule the dissent would reject. With respect to the objective component of anEighth Amendmentclaim, however,Wilsonsuggested no departure fromEstelleand its progeny.
The dissent's argument that claims based on excessive force and claims based on conditions of confinement are no different in kind,postat 24-25, and n. 4, is likewise unfounded. Far from rejectingWhitley'sinsight that the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain standard must be applied with regard for the nature of the allegedEighth Amendmentviolation, theWilsonCourt adopted it.See Wilson,501 U.S. at 302-303. How could it be otherwise when the constitutional touchstone is whether punishment is cruel and unusual? To deny, as the dissent does, the difference between punching a prisoner in the face and serving him unappetizing food is to ignore the "`concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency'" that animate theEighth Amendment.Estelle, supra, at 102 (quotingJackson v. Bishop,404 F.2d 571,579(CA8 1968)).
C
Respondents argue that, aside from the significant injury test applied by the Fifth Circuit, their conduct cannot constitute anEighth Amendmentviolation because it was "isolated and unauthorized." Brief for Respondents 28. The beating of Hudson, they contend, arose from "a personal dispute between correctional security officers and a prisoner," and was against prison policy.Ibid. Respondents invoke the reasoning of courts that have held the use of force by prison officers under such circumstances beyond the scope of "punishment" prohibited by theEighth Amendment.See Johnson v. Glick, supra, at 1032 ("[A]lthough a spontaneous attack by a guard is `cruel' and, we hope, `unusual,' it does not fit any ordinary concept of `punishment'");George v. Evans,633 F.2d 413,416(CA5 1980) ("[A] single, unauthorized assault by a guard does not constitute cruel and unusualPage 12punishment . . . "). But seeDuckworth v. Franzen,780 F.2d 645,652(CA7 1985) ("If a guard decided to supplement a prisoner's official punishment by beating him, this would be punishment . . ."),cert.denied,479 U.S. 816(1986).
We take no position on respondents' legal argument, because we find it inapposite on this record. The Court of Appeals left intact the Magistrate's determination that the violence at issue in this case was "not an isolated assault." App. 27, n. 1. Indeed, there was testimony that McMillian and Woods beat another prisoner shortly after they finished with Hudson.Ibid. To the extent that respondents rely on the unauthorized nature of their acts, they make a claim not addressed by the Fifth Circuit, not presented by the question on which we granted certiorari, and, accordingly, not before this Court. Moreover, respondents ignore the Magistrate's finding that Lieutenant Mezo, acting as a supervisor, "expressly condoned the use of force in this instance." App. 26.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals isReversed.
Absent such special circumstances, however, the less demanding standard of "`unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain'" should be applied.Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97,104(1976) (quotingGregg v. Georgia,428 U.S. 153,173(1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, STEVENS, JJ.));see Unwin v. Campbell,863 F.2d 124,135(CA1 1988) (opinion of Campbell, C.J.) ("where institutional security is not at stake, the officials' license to use force is more limited; to succeed, a plaintiff need not prove malicious and sadistic intent");see alsoWyatt v. Delaney,818 F.2d 21,23(CA8 1987). This approach is consistent with the Court's admonition inWhitleythat the standard to be used is one that gives "due regard for differences in the kind of conduct against which anEighth Amendmentobjection is lodged."475 U.S., at 320. In this case, because there was no prison disturbance and "no need to use any force, since the plaintiff was already in restraints," App. 27, the prison guards' attack upon petitioner resulted in the infliction of unnecessary and wanton pain.Id., at 28.
Although I think that the Court's reliance on the malicious and sadistic standard is misplaced, I agree with the Court that even this more demanding standard was met here. Accordingly, I concur in Parts I, II(A), II(B), and II(C) of the Court's opinion and in its judgment.
Because I was in the dissent inWhitley v. Albers,475 U.S. 312,328(1986), I do not join the Court's extension ofWhitley'smalicious-and-sadistic standard to all allegations of excessive force, even outside the context of a prison riot. Nevertheless, I otherwise join the Court's solid opinion and judgment that theEighth Amendmentdoes not require a showing of "significant injury" in the excessive force context. I write separately to highlight two concerns not addressed by the Court in its opinion.
I
Citing rising caseloads, respondents, represented by the Attorney General of Louisiana and joined by the States of Texas, Hawaii, Nevada, Wyoming, and Florida asamici curiae, suggest that a "significant injury" requirement is necessary to curb the number of court filings by prison inmates. We are informed that the "significant injury requirement has been very effective in the Fifth Circuit in helping to control its system-wide docket management problems." Brief for Texas, Hawaii, Nevada, Wyoming, and Florida asAmici Curiae15.Page 15
This audacious approach to theEighth Amendmentassumes that the interpretation of an explicit constitutional protection is to be guided by pure policy preferences for the paring down of prisoner petitions. Perhaps judicial overload is an appropriate concern in determining whether statutory standing to sue should be conferred upon certain plaintiffs.See, e.g., Associated General Contractors of California,Inc. v. Carpenters,459 U.S. 519,529-546(1983) (identifying "judge-made rules" circumscribing persons entitled to sue under § 4 of the Clayton Act);Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores,421 U.S. 723,737-749(1975) (identifying judicial "policy" considerations limiting standing under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934). But this inherently self-interested concern has no appropriate role in interpreting the contours of a substantive constitutional right.
Since the burden on the courts is presumably worth bearing when a prisoner's suit has merit, the States' "concern" is more aptly termed a "conclusion" that such suits are simply without merit. One's experience on the federal bench teaches the contrary. Moreover, were particular classes of cases to be nominated for exclusion from the federal courthouse, we might look first to cases in which federal law is not sensitively at issue, rather than to those in which fundamental constitutional rights are at stake. The right to file for legal redress in the courts is as valuable to a prisoner as to any other citizen. Indeed, for the prisoner, it is more valuable. Inasmuch as one convicted of a serious crime and imprisoned usually is divested of the franchise, the right to file a court action stands, in the words ofYick Wo v. Hopkins,118 U.S. 356,370(1886), as his most "fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights."
Today's ruling, in any event, does not open the floodgates for filings by prison inmates. By statute, prisoners — alone among all other § 1983 claimants — are required to exhaust administrative remedies. See94 Stat. 352,42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a);Patsy v. Board of Regents ofPage 16Florida,457 U.S. 496,507-512(1982). Moreover, prison officials are entitled to a determination before trial whether they acted in an objectively reasonable manner, thereby entitling them to a qualified immunity defense.Procunier v. Navarette,434 U.S. 555,561-562(1978);see also Harlow v. Fitzgerald,457 U.S. 800,817-818(1982) (unsubstantiated allegations of malice are insufficient to overcome pretrial qualified immunity). Additionally, a federal district court is authorized to dismiss a prisoner's complaintin forma pauperis"if satisfied that the action is frivolous or malicious."28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). These measures should be adequate to control any docket-management problems that might result from meritless prisoner claims.
II
I do not read anything in the Court's opinion to limit injury cognizable under theEighth Amendmentto physical injury. It is not hard to imagine inflictions of psychological harm — without corresponding physical harm — that might prove to be cruel and unusual punishment.See, e.g., Wisniewski v. Kennard,901 F.2d 1276,1277(CA5) (guard placing a revolver in inmate's mouth and threatening to blow prisoner's head off),cert. denied,498 U.S. 926(1990). The issue was not presented here, because Hudson did not allege that he feared that the beating incident would be repeated or that it had caused him anxiety and depression. See App. 29.
As the Court makes clear, theEighth Amendmentprohibits the unnecessary and wanton infliction of "pain," rather than "injury."Ante, at 5. "Pain" in its ordinary meaning surely includes a notion of psychological harm. I am unaware of any precedent of this Court to the effect that psychological pain is not cognizable for constitutional purposes. If anything, our precedent is to the contrary.See SierraClub v. Morton,405 U.S. 727,734(1972) (recognizing Article III standing for "aesthetic" injury);Brown v. Board of Education,347 U.S. 483,494(1954) (identifying schoolchildren's feelings of psychologicalPage 17inferiority from segregation in the public schools).
To be sure, as the Court's opinion intimates,ante, at 9,de minimisor nonmeasurable pain is not actionable under theEighth Amendment. But psychological pain can be more thande minimis. Psychological pain often may be clinically diagnosed and quantified through well established methods, as in the ordinary tort context, where damages for pain and suffering are regularly awarded. I have no doubt that to read a "physical pain" or "physical injury" requirement into theEighth Amendmentwould be no less pernicious and without foundation than the "significant injury" requirement we reject today.
"`Did the Fifth Circuit apply the correct legal test when determining that petitioner's claim that hisEighth Amendmentrights under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause were not violated as a result of a single incident of force by respondents which did not cause a significant injury?"500 U.S. 903(1991).
Guided by what it considers "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,"ante, at 8 (internal quotations omitted), the Court today answers that question in the negative. I would answer it in the affirmative, and would therefore affirm the judgment of the Fifth Circuit. I respectfully dissent.
I
The magistrate who found the facts in this case emphasized that petitioner's injuries were "minor." App. 26, 28. The three judges of the Fifth Circuit who heard the case on appeal did not disturb thatPage 18assessment, and it has not been challenged here. The sole issue in this case, as it comes to us, is a legal one: must a prisoner who claims to have been subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" establish at a minimum that he has suffered a significant injury? The Court today not only responds in the negative, but broadly asserts thatany"unnecessary and wanton" use of physical force against a prisonerautomaticallyamounts to "cruel and unusual punishment," whenever more thande minimisforce is involved. Even ade minimisuse of force, the Court goes on to declare, inflicts cruel and unusual punishment where it is "repugnant to the conscience of mankind."Ante, at 10 (internal quotations omitted).1The extent to which a prisoner isinjuredby the force — indeed, whether he is injured at all — is, in the Court's view, irrelevant.
In my view, a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortious, it may be criminal, and it may even be remediable under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not "cruel and unusual punishment." In concluding to the contrary, the Court today goes far beyond our precedents.
A
Until recent years, the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause was not deemed to apply at all to deprivations that were not inflicted as part of the sentence for a crime. For generations, judges and commentators regarded theEighth Amendmentas applying only to torturous punishments meted out by statutes or sentencing judges, and not generally to any hardship that might befall a prisoner during incarceration. InWeemsv. United States,217 U.S. 349(1910), the Court extensively chronicled the background of the amendment, discussing its English antecedents, its adoption by Congress, its construction by this Court,Page 19and the interpretation of analogous provisions by state courts. Nowhere doesWeemseven hint that the Clause might regulate not just criminal sentences, but the treatment of prisoners. Scholarly commentary also viewed the Clause as governing punishments that were part of the sentence. See T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations *329 ("It is certainly difficult to determine precisely what is meant by cruel and unusual punishments. Probably any punishmentdeclared bystatutefor an offence which was punishable in the same way at the common law, could not be regarded as cruel or unusual in the constitutional sense. And probably any new statutory offence may be punished to the extent and in the mode permitted by thecommon lawfor offences of similar nature. But those degrading punishments which in any State had become obsolete before its existing constitution was adopted, we think may well be held forbidden by it as cruel and unusual") (emphasis added).See also3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 750-751 (1833).
Surely prison was not a more congenial place in the early years of the Republic than it is today; nor were our judges and commentators so naive as to be unaware of the often harsh conditions of prison life. Rather, they simply did not conceive of theEighth Amendmentas protecting inmates from harsh treatment. Thus, historically, the lower courts routinely rejected prisoner grievances by explaining that the courts had no role in regulating prison life. "[I]t is well settled that it is not the function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penitentiaries, but only to deliver from imprisonment those who are illegally confined."Stroud v. Swope,187 F.2d 850,851-852(CA9),cert. denied,342 U.S. 829(1951).Seealso Sutton v. Settle,302 F.2d 286,288(CA8 1962) (per curiam),cert. denied,372 U.S. 930(1963);United States exrel. Atterbury v. Ragen,237 F.2d 953,954-956(CA7 1956),cert.denied,353 U.S. 964(1957);Banning v. Looney,213 F.2d 771,771(CA10 1954) (per curiam);Sarshik v. Sanford,142 F.2d 676(CA5 1944).Page 20It was not until 1976 — 185 years after theEighth Amendmentwas adopted — that this Court first applied it to a prisoner's complaint about a deprivation suffered in prison.Estelle v. Gamble,429 U.S. 97(1976).
B
We made clear inEstellethat theEighth Amendmentplays a very limited role in regulating prison administration. The case involved a claim that prison doctors had inadequately attended an inmate's medical needs. We rejected the claim because the inmate failed to allege "acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidencedeliberate indifferencetoseriousmedical needs."Id., at 106 (emphasis added). From the outset, thus, we specified that theEighth Amendmentdoes not apply to every deprivation, or even every unnecessary deprivation, suffered by a prisoner, but only that narrow class of deprivations involving "serious" injury inflicted by prison officials acting with a culpable state of mind. We have since described these twin elements as the "objective" and "subjective" components of anEighth Amendmentprison claim.See Wilson v. Seiter,501 U.S. 294,298(1991).
We have never found a violation of theEighth Amendmentin the prison context when an inmate has failed to establish either of these elements. InRhodes v. Chapman,452 U.S. 337(1981), for instance, we upheld a practice of placing two inmates in a single cell on the ground that the injury alleged was insufficiently serious. Only where prison conditions deny an inmate "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities,"id., at 347, we said, could they be considered "cruel and unusual punishment." Similarly, inWhitley v. Albers,475 U.S. 312(1986), we held that a guard did not violate theEighth Amendmentwhen he shot an inmate during a prison riot, because he had not acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. When an official uses force to quell a riot, we said, he does not violate theEighth Amendmentunless he acts "`maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causingPage 21harm.'"Id., at 320-321 (quotingJohnson v. Glick,481 F.2d 1028,1033(CA2) (Friendly, J.),cert. denied sub nom. John v. Johnson,414 U.S. 1033(1973)).
We synthesized ourEighth Amendmentprison jurisprudence last Term inWilson, supra. There the inmate alleged that the poor conditions of his confinementper seamounted to cruel and unusual punishment, and argued that he should not be required in addition to establish that officials acted culpably. We rejected that argument, emphasizing that an inmate seeking to establish that a prison deprivation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment always must satisfyboththe "objective component . . . (was the deprivation sufficiently serious?)"andthe "subjective component (did the officials act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind?)" of theEighth Amendment.Id., 298. Both are necessary components; neither suffices by itself.
These subjective and objective components, of course, are implicit in the traditionalEighth Amendmentjurisprudence, which focuses on penalties meted out by statutes or sentencing judges. Thus, if a State were to pass a statute ordering that convicted felons be broken at the wheel, we would not separately inquire whether the legislature had acted with "deliberate indifference," since a statute, as an intentional act, necessarily satisfies an even higher state-of-mind threshold. Likewise, the inquiry whether the deprivation is objectively serious would be encompassed within our determination whether it was "cruel and unusual."
When we cut theEighth Amendmentloose from its historical moorings and applied it to a broad range of prison deprivations, we found it appropriate to make explicit the limitations described inEstelle,Rhodes, Whitley, andWilson. "If the pain inflicted is not formally meted outas punishmentby the statute or the sentencing judge, some mental element must be attributed to the inflicting officer before it can qualify,"Wilson,501 U.S., at 300(emphasis in original) — thus, the subjective component. Similarly, because deprivations of allPage 22sorts are the very essence of imprisonment, we made explicit theseriousdeprivation requirement to ensure that theEighth Amendmentdid not transfer wholesale the regulation of prison life from executive officials to judges. That is why, inWilson, we described the inquiry mandated by the objective component as: "[W]as the deprivationsufficiently serious?"Id., at 298 (emphasis added). That formulation plainly reveals our prior assumption that a serious deprivation isalwaysrequired. Under that analysis, a court's task in any given case was to determine whether the challenged deprivation was "sufficiently" serious. It was not, as the Court's interpretation today would have it, to determine whether a "serious" deprivationisrequired at all.2
C
GivenEstelle, Rhodes, Whitley, andWilson, one might have assumed that the Court would have little difficulty answering the question presented in this case by upholding the Fifth Circuit's "significant injury" requirement.3Instead, the Court announces that "[t]he objective component of anEighth Amendmentclaim is . . . contextual and responsive to contemporary standards of decency."Ante, at 8 (internal quotation omitted). In the context of claims alleging the excessive use of physical force, the Court then asserts, the serious deprivation requirement is satisfied by no serious deprivation at all. "When prison officials maliciously andPage 23sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated."Ante, at 9. Ascertaining prison officials' state of mind, in other words, is theonlyrelevant inquiry in deciding whether such cases involve "cruel and unusual punishment." In my view, this approach is an unwarranted and unfortunate break with ourEighth Amendmentprison jurisprudence.
The Court purports to derive the answer to this case fromWhitley. The sum and substance of anEighth Amendmentviolation, the Court asserts, is "`"he unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain."'"Ante, at 5 (quotingWhitley,475 U.S., at 319). This formulation has the advantage, from the Court's perspective, of eliminating the objective component. As noted above, however, the only dispute inWhitleyconcerned the subjective component; the prisoner, who had been shot, had self-evidently been subjected to an objectively serious injury.Whitleydid not say, as the Court does today, that theobjectivecomponent is contextual, and that anEighth Amendmentclaim may succeed where a prisoner is not seriously injured. Rather,Whitleystands for the proposition that, assuming the existence of an objectively serious deprivation, the culpability of an official's state of mind depends on the context in which he acts.Whitleyteaches that,assumingthe conduct is harmful enough to satisfy the objective componentof anEighth Amendmentclaim, see Rhodes v. Chapman,452 U.S. 337(1981), whether it can be characterized as "wanton" depends upon the constraints facing the official."Wilson, supra, at 303 (emphasis modified). Whether officials subject a prisoner to the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" is simply one way to describe thestate of mind inquirythat was at issue inWhitleyitself. AsWilsonmade clear, that inquiry isnecessary, but notsufficientwhen a prisoner seeks to show that he has been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
Perhaps to compensate for its elimination of theobjectivecomponent in excessive force cases, the Court simultaneously makes it harder forPage 24prisoners to establish thesubjectivecomponent. As we explained inWilson, "deliberate indifference" is the baseline mental state required to establish anEighth Amendmentviolation.501 U.S., at 303. Departure from this baseline is justified where, as inWhitley, prison officials act in response to an emergency; in such situations, their conduct cannot be characterized as "wanton" unless it is taken "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm."475 U.S., at 320-321(internal quotation omitted). The Court today extends the heightened mental state applied inWhitleytoallexcessive force cases, even where no competing institutional concerns are present. The Court simply asserts that "[m]any of the concerns underlying our holding inWhitleyarisewheneverguards use force to keep order."Ante, at 6 (emphasis added). I do not agree. Many excessive force cases do not arise from guards' attempts to "keep order." (In this very case, the basis for petitioner'sEighth Amendmentclaim is that the guards hit him when there was no need for them to use any force at all.) The use of excessive physical force is by no means invariably (in fact, perhaps not even predominantly) accompanied by a "malicious and sadistic" state of mind. I see no justification for applying the extraordinaryWhitleystandard toallexcessive force cases without regard to the constraints facing prison officials. The Court's unwarranted extension ofWhitley, I can only suppose, is driven by the implausibility of saying that minor injuries imposed upon prisoners with anything less than a "malicious and sadistic" state of mind can amount to "cruel and unusual punishment."
D
The Court's attempts to distinguish the cases expressly resting upon the objective component are equally unconvincing. As noted above, we have required an extreme deprivation in cases challenging conditions of confinement,Rhodes v. Chapman,452 U.S. 337(1981). Why should suchPage 25an objectively serious deprivation be required there and not here? The Court's explanation is that "routine discomfort is `part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.'"Ante, at 9 (quotingRhodes, supra, at 347). But there is quite a gap between "routine discomfort" and the denial of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities" required to establish anEighth Amendmentviolation. In the Court's view, then, our society's standards of decency are not violated by anything short of uncivilized conditions of confinement (no matter how malicious the mental state of the officials involved), but are automatically violated by any malicious use of force, regardless of whether it even causes an injury. This is puzzling. I see no reason why our society's standards of decency should be more readily offended when officials, with a culpable state of mind, subject a prisoner to a deprivation on one discrete occasion than when they subject him to continuous deprivations over time. If anything, I would think that a deprivation inflicted continuously over a long period would be of greater concern to society than a deprivation inflicted on one particular occasion.4
The Court's attempted distinction ofEstelleis also unpersuasive: "Because society does not expect that prisoners will havePage 26unqualified access to health care, deliberate indifference to medical needs amounts to anEighth Amendmentviolation only if those needs are `serious.'"Ante, at 9. In my view, our society similarly has no expectation that prisoners will have "unqualified" freedom from force, since forcibly keeping prisoners in detention is what prisons are all about. Why should the seriousness of injury matter when doctors maliciously decide not to treat an inmate, but not when guards maliciously decide to strike him?
At bottom, of course, there is no conclusive way to refute the Court's assertions about our society's "contemporary notions of decency." That is precisely why this Court has long insisted that determinations of whether punishment is cruel and unusual "should be informed by objective factors to the maximum possible extent,"Rhodes, supra, at 346 (internal quotations omitted).
The Court attempts to justify its departure from precedent by saying that, if a showing of serious injury were required, "theEighth Amendmentwould permit any physical punishment, no matter how diabolic or inhuman, inflicting less than some arbitrary quantity of injury."Ante, at 9. That statement, in my view, reveals a central flaw in the Court's reasoning. "[D]iabolic or inhuman" punishments,by definition, inflict serious injury. That is not to say that the injury must be, or always will be,physical. "Many things — beating with a rubber truncheon, water torture, electric shock, incessant noise, reruns of `Space 1999' — may cause agony as they occur, yet leave no enduring injury. The state is not free to inflict such pains without cause just so long as it is careful to leave no marks."Williams v. Boles,841 F.2d 181,183(CA7 1988). Surely a prisoner who alleges that prison officials tortured him with a device like the notorious "Tucker Telephone" described by JUSTICE BLACKMUN,ante, at 14, has alleged a serious injury. But petitioner has not alleged a deprivation of this type; the injuries he has alleged are entirely physical, and were found below to be "minor."Page 27
Furthermore, to characterize the serious injury requirement as "arbitrary" is not to explain why it should be eliminated in this particular context, while it remains applicable to all other prison deprivations. To be sure, it will not always be obvious which injuries are "serious." But similarly, it will not always be obvious which medical needs are "serious," or which conditions of confinement deny "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities." These determinations are, however, required by theEighth Amendment, which prohibitsonlythose punishments that are "cruel and unusual." As explained above, I think our precedents clearly establish that a prisoner seeking to prove that he has been subjected to "cruel and unusual" punishment must always show that he has suffered a serious deprivation.
If the Court is to be taken at its word that "the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain" upon a prisonerper seamounts to "cruel and unusual punishment," the implications of today's opinion are sweeping. For this formulation replaces the objective component described in our prior cases with a "necessity" component. Many prison deprivations, however, are not "necessary," at least under any meaningful definition of that word. Thus, under today's analysis,Rhodeswas wrongly decided. Surely the "double-celling" of inmates was not "necessary" to fulfill the State's penal mission; in fact, the prison in that case had been designed for individual cells, but was simply overcrowded.452 U.S., at 343. We rejected the prisoners' claim inRhodesnot because we determined that double-celling was "necessary," but because the deprivations alleged were not sufficiently serious to state a claim of cruel and unusual punishment. After today, the "necessity" of a deprivation is apparently the only relevant inquiry beyond the wantonness of official conduct. This approach, in my view, extends theEighth Amendmentbeyond all reasonable limits.Page 28
II
Today's expansion of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause beyond all bounds of history and precedent is, I suspect, yet another manifestation of the pervasive view that the Federal Constitution must address all ills in our society. Abusive behavior by prison guards is deplorable conduct that properly evokes outrage and contempt. But that does not mean that it is invariably unconstitutional. TheEighth Amendmentis not, and should not be turned into, a National Code of Prison Regulation. To reject the notion that the infliction of concededly "minor" injuries can be considered either "cruel" or "unusual" "punishment" (much less cruelandunusual punishment) is not to say that it amounts to acceptable conduct. Rather, it is to recognize that primary responsibility for preventing and punishing such conduct rests not with the Federal Constitution, but with the laws and regulations of the various States.
Petitioner apparently could have, but did not, seek redress for his injuries under state law.5Respondents concede that, if availablePage 29state remedies were not constitutionally adequate, petitioner would have a claim under the Due Process Clause of theFourteenth Amendment.Cf.Davidson v. Cannon,474 U.S. 344,348(1986);Hudson v. Palmer,468 U.S. 517,532-534(1984);Parratt v. Taylor,451 U.S. 527,541. I agree with respondents that this is the appropriate, and appropriately limited, federal constitutional inquiry in this case.
Because I conclude that, under our precedents, a prisoner seeking to establish that he has been subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" must always show that he has suffered a serious injury, I would affirm the judgment of the Fifth Circuit.Page 30
- Page 3 Briefs ofamici curiaeurging reversal were filed for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., byDaniel B. Hales, Emory A. Plitt, Jr.,Wayne W. Schmidt, andJames P. Manak;for the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, Inc., byTheodore A. HowardandRichard J. Arsenault;for Human Rights Watch byCameron Clark;and for the Prisoners' Legal Service of New York byJohn A. GreshamandStephen M. Latimer.
A brief ofamici curiaeurging affirmance was filed for the State of Texas et al. byDan Morales, Attorney General of Texas,Will Pryor, First Assistant Attorney General,Mary F. Keller, Deputy Attorney General, andMichael P. Hodge, Charles A. Palmer, Sharon Felfe, andAdrian L.Young, Assistant Attorneys General, joined by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows:Warren Price IIIof Hawaii,JosephB. Meyerof Wyoming,Frankie Sue Del Papaof Nevada, andRobert A.Butterworthof Florida. ↩ - Page 18 This point is pure dictum, because the force here was surely notdeminimis. ↩
- Page 22 While granting petitioner relief on hisEighth Amendmentclaim, the Court leaves open the issue whether isolated and unauthorized acts are "punishment" at all. This will, of course, be the critical question in future cases of this type. If we ultimately decide that isolated and unauthorized acts are not "punishment," then today's decision is a dead letter. That anomaly simply highlights the artificiality of applying theEighth Amendmentto prisoner grievances, whether caused by the random misdeeds of prison officials or by official policy. ↩
- Page 22 I do not believe that there is any substantive difference between the "serious deprivation" requirement found in our precedents and the Fifth Circuit's "significant injury" requirement. ↩
- Page 25 Moreover, by distinguishing this case from "conditions" cases, the Court resurrects a distinction that we have repudiated as "not only unsupportable in principle but unworkable in practice."Wilson v.Seiter,501 U.S. 294,299(1991). When officials use force against a prisoner, whether once or every day, that is a "condition" of his confinement. It is unwise, in my view, to make the very existence of the serious deprivation requirement depend on whether a particular claim is characterized as one challenging a "condition" or one challenging a "specific act."Cf. McCarthy v. Bronson,500 U.S. 136,139,143(1991) ("[C]onditions of confinement" under28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) include not only challenges to ongoing prison conditions but also challenges to "isolated incidents" of excessive force, in part because "the distinction between cases challenging ongoing conditions and those challenging specific acts of alleged misconduct will often be difficult to identify"). ↩
- Page 28 According to respondents:
"Louisiana state courts are open to prisoners for the purpose of suing prison personnel who have caused them unjustified wrongs. For example,see Parker v. State,282 So.2d 483,486-87(La. 1973),cert. denied,414 U.S. 1093(1973);Anderson v. Phelps,451 So.2d 1284,1285(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1984);McGee v. State,417 So.2d 416,418(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir.),writ denied,420 So.2d 871[981] (La. 1982);Neathery v. State,395 So.2d 407,410(La.Ct.App. 3d Cir. 1981);Shields v. StateThrough Dep't of Corrections,380 So.2d 123(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1979),writ denied,382 So.2d 164[(La. 1980)];Craft v. State,308 So.2d 290,295(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir.),writ denied,319 So.2d 441(La. 1975),cert. denied,423 U.S. 1075(1975);Lewis v. Listi,377 So.2d 551,553(La.Ct.App. 3d Cir. 1979);Bastida v. State,269 So.2d 544,545(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1972);Adams v. State,247 So.2d 149,151(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1971);St. Julian v. State,98 So.2d 284(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1957);Nedd v. State,281 So.2d 131,132(La. 1973),cert.denied,415 U.S. 957(1974);Mack v. State,529 So.2d 446,448(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1988),writ denied,533 So.2d 359(La. 1988);Walden v. State,430 So.2d 1224(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1983),writ denied,435 So.2d 430(La. 1983);White v. Phelps,Page 29387 So.2d 1188(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1980);Hampton v. State,361 So.2d 257,258(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1978);Davis v. State,356 So.2d 452,454(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1977);Betsch v. State,353 So.2d [358], 359 (La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1977),writ refused,354 So.2d 1389[1380] (La. 1978);Williams v. State,351 So.2d 1273(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1977);Jones v. State,346 So.2d 807,808(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir.),writrefused,350 So.2d 671(La. 1977);Walker v. State,346 So.2d 794,796(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir.),writ denied,349 So.2d 879(La. 1977);Raney v. State,322 So.2d 890(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1975); andBay v. Maggio,417 So.2d 1386(La.Ct.App. 1st Cir. 1982). Brief for Respondents 42-43, n. 38.
Petitioner has not disputed the existence or adequacy of state law remedies for his injuries. ↩