Use of Force.
Legal Standard
The use of force on a post conviction prisoner constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment if it is the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, done to maliciously and sadistically cause harm, as opposed to a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline. This standard was formed by Whitley v. Albers but extended by Hudson v. McMillian.
Alternatively, pretrial detainees must prove that the force purposefully or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable to show a violation of constitutional due process, as held in Kingsley v. Hendrickson.
Recent Case Law
Stringer v. County of Bucks
The parents of Kimberly Stringer sued the Bucks County Correctional Facility after Kimberly was held in segregation, strapped to a restraint. chair, and pepper-sprayed.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recognized a valid constitutional claim but found Kimberly’s circumstances insufficiently detailed to assess whether her right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment was clearly established.
The Third Circuit remanded the case to determine whether the correctional staff are entitled to qualified immunity.
Stringer v. County of Bucks, 141 F.4th 76 (3rd Cir. 2025).
Nash v. Bryce
Two correctional officers used a “takedown maneuver on Brent Nash, throwing him down on to cement, and fracturing his foot in two places. The officers alleged the maneuver was necessary because Mr. Nash lunged away from them while being escorted.
Mr. Nash sued in federal court alleging an improper use of force. The district court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because the prison videotapes analyzed by the lower Court raised a genuine dispute of material fact.
Nash v. Bryce, 157 F.4th 436 (6th Cir. 2025).
Escobar-Salmeron v. Moyer
After receiving a tip that Edwin Bladimir Escobar-Salmeron had a knife, two correctional officers forcibly strip-searched and brutally beat Mr. Escobar-Salmeron in a prison common room.
Mr. Escobar-Salmeron sued alleging use of force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The District Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, asserting that the underlying facts did not support the officers acting maliciously or sadistically.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the claim, finding a genuine dispute of material fact over the correctional officers’ states of mind.
Escobar-Salmeron v. Moyer, 150 F.4th 360 (4th Cir. 2025).