-
862 F.2d 697·
8th Cir.·
1989-01-23
·cited 41×
The court held that the jury instruction on the Eighth Amendment standard for excessive force was flawed because it did not require a finding of malicious and sadistic intent or the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
-
813 F.2d 1187·
11th Cir.·
1987-04-06
·cited 27×
Summary judgment for prison officials is affirmed where the use of force did not inflict unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering, and the prisoner suffered only minimal injury.
-
770 F.2d 299·
2d Cir.·
1985-08-08
·cited 15×
The court held that the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing a pro se prisoner's complaint before service of process.
-
986 F.2d 1521·
9th Cir.·
1993-02-25
·cited 10×
The court held that the prison policy allowing cross-gender searches did not violate the Eighth Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment analysis should not employ a balancing test as suggested by a concurring opinion.
-
818 F.2d 21·
8th Cir.·
1987-05-11
·cited 6×
The court held that the inmate failed to prove an Eighth Amendment violation because the injury was accidental and the emotional harm was de minimis.
-
835 F.2d 605·
5th Cir.·
1988-01-14
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the pro se § 1983 suit as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
-
950 F.2d 462·
7th Cir.·
1991-12-09
·cited 2×
The Eighth Amendment governs a prisoner's claim of excessive force used to prevent escape, and the officer's actions in shooting the escaping inmate did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-02-03
The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to show they acted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm, and thus did not demonstrate an Eighth Amendment violation.