Wilkins v. Gaddy
| Decision Date | 22 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-10914.,08-10914. |
| Citation | 130 S.Ct. 1175,175 L. Ed. 2d 995 |
| Parties | Jamey L. WILKINS, Petitioner, v. Officer GADDY. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
In Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 4, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992), this Court held that "the use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment [even] when the inmate does not suffer serious injury." In this case, the District Court dismissed a prisoner's excessive force claim based entirely on its determination that his injuries were "de minimis." Because the District Court's approach, affirmed on appeal, is at odds with Hudson's direction to decide excessive force claims based on the nature of the force rather than the extent of the injury, the petition for certiorari is granted, and the judgment is reversed.
I
In March 2008, petitioner Jamey Wilkins, a North Carolina state prisoner, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClellan v. Kern Cnty. Sheriff's Office, CASE NO. 1:10-cv-0386-LJO-MJS (PC)
...475 U.S. at 321. The absence of significant injury alone is not dispositive of a claim of excessive force. See Wilkens v. Gaddy, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1176-77 (2010).3. Fourteenth Amendmenta. Deprivation of Property The Due Process Clause protects prisoners from being deprived......
- Roberts v. State
-
Griffin v. Hollar
...support the nonmoving party's case.'” Carr v. Deeds, 453 F.3d 593, 608 (4th Cir. 2006) abrogated on other grounds by Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S.Ct. 1175 (2010) (per curiam) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, (1986)) (internal emphasis omitted). Once this initial burden is met, th......
- Wilkins v. Gaddy