Rankin v. Klevenhagen, 92-2627

• Citation: 5 F.3d 103
• Decision Date: 21 October 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-2627,92-2627
• Parties: Joseph RANKIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John KLEVENHAGEN, et al., Defendants, G.D. Pinkins, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Page 103

5 F.3d 103

Joseph RANKIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John KLEVENHAGEN, et al., Defendants G.D. Pinkins, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 92-2627

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals,

Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 21, 1993.

Renuka V. Jain, Houston, TX, for defendant-appellant.

Paul L. Mitchell, William Kroger, Baker & Botts, Houston, TX, for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Before DAVIS, JONES and DUHE, Circuit Judges.

DUHE, Circuit Judge:

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of Appellant's motion for summary judgment claiming qualified immunity. Joseph Rankin (Rankin) alleges that Appellant used excessive force on him while he was an inmate in the Harris County Jail. Gregory Pinkins (Pinkins), a Deputy Sheriff in Harris County, Texas, asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity from Appellee's Sec. 1983 suit. We hold that the district court erred in applying Hudson v. McMillian ¹ to the second prong of the bifurcated inquiry into Pinkins' qualified immunity defense, and remand for further proceedings.

I.

Rankin was incarcerated at the Harris County Jail in 1986. He was placed in a large holding cell with 150-200 other inmates awaiting court appearances. A group of female prisoners passed in front of the holding cell, and the inmates therein began shouting and otherwise creating a disturbance. Deputy Pinkins attempted to restore order to the holding area, so that the processing of the inmates could continue.

Rankin alleges that Pinkins singled him out from the others in the holding cell and forcibly removed him. The ensuing events are disputed; however, Rankin contends that Pinkins placed him in a "compliance hold," slammed him against a wall and the jail's floor, handcuffed him and "stomped" on his back and legs. Rankin suffered injuries to his knee, throat and a finger.

Appellee filed this 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 suit. Appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1) he did not apply excessive force to Appellee; and, (2) he was entitled to qualified immunity from suit.

The court initially indicated that it would grant Pinkins' motion, but delayed ruling until Appellee responded. Rankin, in his response, moved to stay the proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in Hudson v. McMillian, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), rev'g 929 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir.1990). ² The district court agreed, and stayed the proceedings. After the Supreme Court decided Hudson, Pinkins renewed his motion for summary judgment. The court denied it and Pinkins timely appealed. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2814, 2815, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (rulings which deny qualified immunity are appealable under the "collateral order" exception to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291).

When Pinkins filed his petition for review, he also requested that the district court stay the Sec. 1983 action pending this appeal. The district court granted this motion. In the stay order the court explained that it had denied Pinkins' summary judgment request based on the standards announced in Hudson. R. 901. Pinkins now appeals, arguing that the court should have evaluated his defense under the law in place at the time of the incident instead of retroactively applying Hudson.

II.

In assessing a claim of qualified immunity, we engage in a bifurcated analysis. See Salas v. Carpenter, 980 F.2d 299, 305 (5th Cir.1992). First, we determine whether the plaintiff has "allege[d] the violation of a clearly established constitutional right." Siegert v. Gilley, --- U.S. ----, ----, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). If so, we then decide if the defendant's conduct was objectively reasonable, because " '[e]ven if an official's conduct violates a constitutional right, he is entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct was objectively reasonable.' " Spann v. Rainey, 987 F.2d 1110, 1114 (5th Cir.1993) (quoting Salas, 980 F.2d at 310). Because this matter was resolved by summary judgment, "[o]ur review is plenary accepting the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Salas, 980 F.2d at 304.

Appellee has alleged that Pinkins used excessive force against him, thereby violating his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. R. 7. At the outset, we note that Appellee, at the time of his incarceration, had not yet been convicted of the crime with which he was charged (forgery). Generally, this would require us to review his claim as one alleging a Fourteenth Amendment due process violation, in light of his status as a pretrial detainee. See, e.g. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1872, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979) (pretrial conditions or restrictions that amount to "punishment" implicate due process concerns). However, at the time of his arrest, Rankin was on parole from the Texas Department of Corrections, where he was serving his sentence for an earlier burglary conviction. See R. 108-09 (Rankin deposition). This would seem to warrant review under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. See, e.g. Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 327, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 1088, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986) (Eighth Amendment is primary source of protection against the official use of force on convicted prisoners).

In Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2998, 125 L.Ed.2d 691 (1993), we were confronted with a an excessive force claim brought by a pretrial detainee who had been confined for three weeks. The plaintiff-detainee was involved in a small-scale disturbance, and alleged that a guard used excessive force on him in attempting to squelch the ruckus. The Valencia court, in a thorough and well-reasoned opinion, concluded:

[W]hen a court is called upon to examine the amount of force used on a pretrial detainee for the purpose of institutional security, the appropriate analysis is that announced in Whitley and Hudson: whether the measure taken inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering depends 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."

Valencia, 981 F.2d at 1446 (quoting Hudson v. McMillian, --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 995, 998, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992)).

Both Whitley and Hudson are Eighth Amendment cases involving convicted prisoners; however, the Valencia court concluded that these cases provided the proper framework for analyzing a pretrial detainee's excessive force claim, when the force was applied in an effort to preserve institutional security: "[I]t is impractical to draw a line between convicted prisoners and pretrial detainees for the purpose of maintaining jail security." 981 F.2d at 1446. The court found further guidance from Hudson 's intimation "that many of [the Supreme Court's] concerns in Whitley were not limited to Eighth Amendment claims but 'arise whenever guards use force to keep order.' " Valencia, 981 F.2d at 1446 (emphasis in original) (quoting Hudson, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 996)).

The instant case fits squarely into the holding of Valencia. We are reviewing a detainee's claim stemming from force applied when a jailer attempted to restore institutional order. Even if our review hinged upon Appellee's parolee status, the same standards would govern our analysis. Appellee had been detained for approximately two weeks when the incident with Deputy Pinkins occurred. Additionally, at the time of the incident Pinkins was attempting to restore order to the holding cell area. We conclude that the Eighth Amendment is the proper benchmark against which Rankin's claim should be analyzed.

Having identified what constitutional criteria govern Appellee's claim, we look to see if he has alleged a constitutional violation. We must utilize currently applicable constitutional standards to make this assessment. See Spann v. Rainey, 987 F.2d 1110, 1115 (5th Cir.1993) (applying Fourth Amendment excessive force standards announced in Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477 (5th Cir.1989) (en banc), to incident which occurred in 1987); Hudson v. McMillian, 929 F.2d 1014, 1015 (5th Cir.1990) (applying Eighth Amendment excessive force standards announced in Huguet v. Barnett, 900 F.2d 838 (5th Cir.1990), to incident which occurred in 1983), rev'd --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992)).

Pinkins urges that the district court should have applied Shillingford v. Holmes ³ in analyzing whether or not Appellee's complaint sufficiently stated a constitutional violation. Shillingford articulated this court's standard governing excessive force claims at the time Pinkins allegedly injured Rankin. See Valencia, 981 F.2d at 1443.

Appellant's contention that the district court erred in its retroactive application of Hudson to the first prong of his qualified immunity defense is without merit: "Our conclusion that Whitley and Hudson provide the correct standard for excessive force suits brought by pretrial detainees means that this Circuit's test in Shillingford has no continuing force." Valencia, 981 F.2d at 1447; accord Shabazz v. Lynaugh, 974 F.2d 597, 598 (5th Cir.1992) (remanding dismissal of prisoner's excessive force claim for reconsideration in light of Hudson ); Tijerina v. Plentl, 958 F.2d 133, 138 (5th Cir.1992) (vacating judgment entered after jury trial and remanding case after Hudson ). Consequently, to state an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, a prisoner (or pretrial detainee engaged in disrupting institutional security), must show that force was applied not "in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline," but rather that the force complained of was administered "maliciously and sadistically to cause harm." Hudson, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 999 (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)); see Valencia 981 F.2d at 1446.

In this case, the district...