Hudson v. McMillian
| Decision Date | 31 July 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3394,87-3394 |
| Citation | 929 F.2d 1014 |
| Parties | Keith J. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack McMILLIAN, CSO III, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
S. Dwayne Broussard, J. Marvin Montgomery, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellants.
Keith J. Hudson, Angola, La., pro se.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Before POLITZ, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
On appeal is a judgment rendered by a magistrate in favor of a prisoner who was physically mistreated by corrections officers. In light of the standards established by this court's intervening decision in Huguet v. Barnett, 900 F.2d 838 (5th Cir.1990), and progeny, however, we must reverse.
Keith J. Hudson, a Louisiana state prisoner confined to Angola penitentiary invoked 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and sued corrections officers Jack McMillian, Marvin Woods, and Arthur Mezo. The parties consented to disposition of the case by a magistrate, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(c). The evidence reflects that on October 30, 1983 Hudson got into an argument with McMillian who punched Hudson in the mouth, eyes, chest, and stomach while Woods held him. The blows cracked Hudson's partial dental plate, split his lower lip and loosened his teeth. He received bruises to his body but no other cuts. Woods kicked Hudson on his backside. Mezo, the supervisor of McMillian and Woods, watched the beating but merely cautioned the officers not to "have too much fun."
Hudson appeared at sick call on October 31 and November 1, 1983 with a dental complaint; his medical record contains no reference to facial bruises or other injuries.
In awarding Hudson a modest judgment the magistrate credited the testimony of Hudson, rejecting that of the officers, and concluded that Defendants timely appealed.
This court joins the magistrate in deploring the use of unnecessary force in the treatment of prisoners. Hopefully someday this blight on our criminal justice system will be forever removed. However not every use of excessive force rises to a constitutional violation cognizable under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.
In our recent decision in Huguet v. Barnett we announced the standard to be applied in excessive force claims made by prisoners under the eighth amendment. We there held that to prevail in such a claim four elements must be proven:
1. a significant injury, which
2. resulted directly and only from the use of force that was clearly excessive to the need, the excessiveness of which was
3. objectively unreasonable, and
4. the action constituted an unnecessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. City of Clio
...eighth amendment claim. See Hudson v. McMillian, 911 F.2d 727 (5th Cir.1990) (Table) (opinion available on WESTLAW), rev'd, 929 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1579, 113 L.Ed.2d 645 19 See plaintiff's Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, fil......
-
Hudson v. Millian
...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), O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and WHITE, KENNEDY, and SOUTER, JJ., joined, and in which......
-
Cox v. County of Suffolk
...Wisniewski v. Kennard, 901 F.2d 1276, 1279 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 309, 112 L.Ed.2d 262 (1990); Hudson v. McMillian, 929 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir.) (applying significant injury test under Eighth Amendment excessive force claim), cert. granted, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 157......
-
Brewer v. Kamas
...the plaintiff sustained only minor injuries as a result of the assault, entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Hudson v. McMillian, 929 F.2d 1014, 1015 (5th Cir.1990). On the defendants' appeal, the Fifth Circuit found the plaintiffs minor injuries insufficient to sustain a § 1983 clai......