whitley
albers
argued
december
decided
march
course
riot
oregon
state
penitentiary
prison
officer
taken
hostage
placed
cell
upper
tier
cellblock
attempt
free
hostage
prison
officials
worked
plan
called
prisoner
security
manager
enter
cellblock
unarmed
followed
prison
officers
armed
shotguns
security
manager
ordered
one
officers
fire
warning
shot
shoot
low
inmates
climbing
stairs
upper
tier
since
climbing
stairs
free
hostage
one
officers
firing
warning
shot
shot
respondent
left
knee
started
stairs
respondent
subsequently
brought
action
federal
district
petitioner
prison
officials
pursuant
alleging
inter
alia
deprived
rights
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
conclusion
trial
district
directed
verdict
petitioners
appeals
reversed
remanded
new
trial
respondent
eighth
amendment
claim
held
shooting
respondent
violate
eighth
amendment
right
free
cruel
unusual
punishments
pp
obduracy
wantonness
inadvertence
error
good
faith
characterize
conduct
prohibited
cruel
unusual
punishments
clause
whether
conduct
occurs
connection
establishing
conditions
confinement
supplying
medical
needs
restoring
control
tumultuous
cellblock
infliction
pain
course
prison
security
measure
therefore
amount
cruel
unusual
punishment
simply
may
appear
retrospect
degree
force
authorized
applied
security
purposes
unreasonable
hence
unnecessary
strict
sense
general
requirement
eighth
amendment
claimant
establish
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
also
applied
due
regard
differences
kind
conduct
involved
thus
prison
security
measure
undertaken
resolve
disturbance
occurred
case
poses
significant
risks
safety
inmates
prison
staff
question
whether
measure
taken
inflicted
unnecessary
wanton
pain
suffering
ultimately
turns
whether
force
applied
effort
maintain
restore
discipline
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
pp
viewing
evidence
light
favorable
respondent
must
done
reviewing
decision
reversing
trial
directed
verdict
petitioners
appear
evidence
supports
reliable
inference
wantonness
infliction
pain
standard
evidence
arguably
showing
prison
officials
erred
judgment
decided
plan
employed
potentially
deadly
force
falls
far
short
showing
plausible
basis
belief
degree
force
necessary
particular
order
shoot
qualified
instruction
shoot
low
falls
short
commanding
infliction
pain
wanton
unnecessary
fashion
failure
provide
verbal
warning
addition
warning
shot
insupportable
wanton
since
inmate
running
stairs
prison
security
manager
reasonably
thought
pose
threat
rescue
attempt
failure
take
account
possibility
respondent
might
climb
stairs
effort
return
cell
rise
level
eighth
amendment
violation
assuming
prison
officer
shot
respondent
rather
inmates
group
establish
officer
shot
respondent
knowing
unnecessary
circumstances
shooting
part
parcel
effort
restore
prison
security
pp
case
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
serve
alternative
basis
affirmance
independently
eighth
amendment
prison
security
context
due
process
clause
affords
respondent
greater
protection
cruel
unusual
punishments
clause
pp
delivered
opinion
burger
white
powell
rehnquist
joined
marshall
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
blackmun
joined
stevens
joined
post
dave
frohnmayer
attorney
general
oregon
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
william
gary
deputy
attorney
general
james
mountain
solicitor
general
virginia
linder
assistant
solicitor
general
robert
atkinson
assistant
attorney
general
gene
mechanic
appointment
argued
cause
filed
brief
respondent
acting
solicitor
general
fried
acting
assistant
attorney
general
willard
deputy
solicitor
general
geller
andrew
pincus
filed
brief
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
steven
ney
michael
mushlin
filed
brief
correctional
association
new
york
et
al
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
justice
delivered
opinion
case
requires
us
decide
standard
governs
prison
inmate
claim
prison
officials
subjected
cruel
unusual
punishment
shooting
course
attempt
quell
prison
riot
time
injured
respondent
gerald
albers
confined
cellblock
oregon
state
penitentiary
cellblock
consists
two
tiers
barred
cells
housing
inmates
two
tiers
connected
stairway
offers
practical
way
move
one
tier
another
evening
june
several
inmates
found
intoxicated
prison
annex
prison
guards
attempted
move
intoxicated
prisoners
resisted
penitentiary
isolation
segregation
facility
incident
seen
cell
windows
cellblock
onlookers
became
agitated
thought
guards
using
unnecessary
force
acting
instructions
superiors
officers
kemper
fitts
duty
cellblock
ordered
prisoners
return
cells
order
obeyed
several
inmates
confronted
two
officers
standing
open
area
lower
tier
one
inmate
richard
klenk
jumped
second
tier
assaulted
officer
kemper
kemper
escaped
officer
fitts
taken
hostage
klenk
inmates
began
breaking
furniture
milling
upon
informed
disturbance
petitioner
harol
whitley
prison
security
manager
entered
cellblock
spoke
klenk
captain
whitley
agreed
permit
four
residents
cellblock
view
inmates
taken
segregation
earlier
emissaries
reported
back
prisoners
segregation
intoxicated
unharmed
nonetheless
disturbance
cellblock
continued
whitley
returned
cellblock
confirmed
fitts
harmed
shortly
thereafter
fitts
moved
office
lower
tier
cell
upper
tier
klenk
demanded
media
representatives
brought
cellblock
course
negotiations
klenk
armed
homemade
knife
informed
whitley
one
inmate
already
killed
deaths
follow
fact
inmate
beaten
killed
prisoners
captain
whitley
left
cellblock
organize
assault
squad
whitley
returned
cellblock
taken
see
fitts
cell
several
inmates
assured
whitley
protect
fitts
harm
klenk
threatened
kill
hostage
attempt
made
lead
assault
klenk
least
inmates
aware
guards
assembled
outside
cellblock
shotguns
issued
meanwhile
respondent
left
cell
upper
tier
see
elderly
prisoners
housed
lower
tier
moved
harm
way
event
tear
gas
used
respondent
testified
asked
whitley
key
row
cells
housing
elderly
prisoners
whitley
indicated
return
key
whitley
denied
spoke
respondent
time
disturbance
tr
whitley
next
consulted
superiors
petitioners
cupp
prison
superintendent
kenney
assistant
superintendent
agreed
forceful
intervention
necessary
protect
life
hostage
safety
inmates
rioting
ruled
tear
gas
unworkable
alternative
cupp
ordered
whitley
take
squad
armed
shotguns
cellblock
whitley
gave
final
orders
assault
team
assembled
area
outside
cellblock
petitioner
kennicott
two
officers
armed
shotguns
follow
whitley
unarmed
barricade
inmates
constructed
cellblock
entrance
second
group
officers
without
firearms
behind
whitley
ordered
kennicott
fire
warning
shot
crossed
barricade
also
ordered
kennicott
shoot
low
prisoners
climbing
stairs
toward
cell
since
pose
threat
safety
hostage
whitley
climbing
stairs
attempt
free
hostage
cell
whitley
reappeared
outside
barricade
time
half
hour
elapsed
since
earlier
breaking
furniture
noise
level
cellblock
noticeably
diminished
respondent
standing
bottom
stairway
asked
key
whitley
replied
clambered
barricade
yelled
shoot
bastards
ran
toward
stairs
klenk
standing
open
areaway
along
number
inmates
kennicott
fired
warning
shot
wall
opposite
cellblock
entrance
followed
whitley
barricade
fired
second
shot
struck
post
near
stairway
meanwhile
whitley
chased
klenk
stairs
shortly
thereafter
respondent
started
stairs
kennicott
fired
third
shot
struck
respondent
left
knee
another
inmate
shot
stairs
several
others
lower
tier
wounded
gunshot
inmates
cell
prevented
klenk
entering
whitley
subdued
klenk
cell
door
freeing
hostage
result
incident
respondent
sustained
severe
damage
left
leg
mental
emotional
distress
subsequently
commenced
action
pursuant
alleging
petitioners
deprived
rights
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
raising
pendent
state
law
claims
assault
battery
negligence
many
facts
stipulated
see
tr
sides
also
presented
testimony
witnesses
disturbance
rescue
attempt
well
expert
witnesses
backgrounds
prison
discipline
security
conclusion
trial
district
judge
directed
verdict
petitioners
understood
respondent
claim
based
solely
eighth
amendment
made
applicable
fourteenth
amendment
see
robinson
california
district
judge
held
efendants
use
deadly
force
justified
unique
circumstances
case
possible
alternatives
considered
reasonably
rejected
prison
officers
use
shotguns
specifically
order
shoot
low
anyone
following
unarmed
whitley
stairs
necessary
protect
whitley
secure
safe
release
hostage
restore
order
discipline
even
hindsight
said
defendants
actions
reasonably
necessary
supp
panel
appeals
ninth
circuit
reversed
part
affirmed
part
one
judge
dissenting
held
eighth
amendment
violation
established
prison
official
deliberately
shot
albers
circumstances
official
due
allowance
exigency
knew
known
unnecessary
emergency
plan
adopted
carried
deliberate
indifference
right
albers
free
cruel
unusual
punishment
ibid
appeals
pointed
evidence
general
disturbance
cellblock
subsiding
respondent
experts
testimony
use
deadly
force
excessive
circumstances
preceded
verbal
warning
concluded
jury
found
eighth
amendment
violation
appeals
also
ruled
petitioners
prevail
qualified
immunity
defense
finding
deliberate
indifference
inconsistent
finding
good
faith
qualified
immunity
ibid
accordingly
remanded
new
trial
respondent
eighth
amendment
claim
agreeing
district
judge
respondent
prevail
state
law
claims
asserted
independent
violation
fourteenth
amendment
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
language
eighth
amendment
xcessive
bail
shall
required
excessive
fines
imposed
cruel
unusual
punishments
inflicted
manifests
intention
limit
power
entrusted
function
government
ingraham
wright
cruel
unusual
punishments
clause
designed
protect
convicted
crimes
consequently
clause
applies
state
complied
constitutional
guarantees
traditionally
associated
criminal
prosecutions
see
also
revere
massachusetts
general
hospital
bell
wolfish
express
intent
inflict
unnecessary
pain
required
estelle
gamble
deliberate
indifference
prisoner
serious
medical
needs
cruel
unusual
punishment
harsh
conditions
confinement
may
constitute
cruel
unusual
punishment
unless
conditions
part
penalty
criminal
offenders
pay
offenses
society
rhodes
chapman
every
governmental
action
affecting
interests
prisoner
subject
eighth
amendment
scrutiny
however
incarceration
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
constitutes
cruel
unusual
punishment
forbidden
eighth
amendment
ingraham
wright
supra
quoting
estelle
gamble
supra
citations
omitted
cruel
unusual
punishment
conduct
purport
punishment
must
involve
ordinary
lack
due
care
prisoner
interests
safety
reading
clause
underlies
decision
estelle
gamble
supra
held
prison
physician
negligen
ce
diagnosing
treating
medical
condition
suffice
make
claim
cruel
unusual
punishment
obduracy
wantonness
inadvertence
error
good
faith
characterize
conduct
prohibited
cruel
unusual
punishments
clause
whether
conduct
occurs
connection
establishing
conditions
confinement
supplying
medical
needs
restoring
official
control
tumultuous
cellblock
infliction
pain
course
prison
security
measure
therefore
amount
cruel
unusual
punishment
simply
may
appear
retrospect
degree
force
authorized
applied
security
purposes
unreasonable
hence
unnecessary
strict
sense
general
requirement
eighth
amendment
claimant
allege
prove
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
also
applied
due
regard
differences
kind
conduct
eighth
amendment
objection
lodged
deliberate
indifference
standard
articulated
estelle
appropriate
context
presented
case
state
responsibility
attend
medical
needs
prisoners
ordinarily
clash
equally
important
governmental
responsibilities
consequently
deliberate
indifference
prisoner
serious
illness
injury
estelle
supra
typically
established
disproved
without
necessity
balancing
competing
institutional
concerns
safety
prison
staff
inmates
making
carrying
decisions
involving
use
force
restore
order
face
prison
disturbance
prison
officials
undoubtedly
must
take
account
real
threats
unrest
presents
inmates
prison
officials
alike
addition
possible
harms
inmates
force
might
used
said
hudson
palmer
prison
administrators
charged
responsibility
ensuring
safety
prison
staff
administrative
personnel
visitors
well
obligation
take
reasonable
measures
guarantee
safety
inmates
setting
deliberate
indifference
standard
adequately
capture
importance
competing
obligations
convey
appropriate
hesitancy
critique
hindsight
decisions
necessarily
made
haste
pressure
frequently
without
luxury
second
chance
prison
security
measure
undertaken
resolve
disturbance
occurred
case
indisputably
poses
significant
risks
safety
inmates
prison
staff
think
question
whether
measure
taken
inflicted
unnecessary
wanton
pain
suffering
ultimately
turns
whether
force
applied
good
faith
effort
maintain
restore
discipline
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
johnson
glick
friendly
cert
denied
sub
nom
john
johnson
district
judge
correctly
perceived
factors
need
application
force
relationship
need
amount
force
used
extent
injury
inflicted
relevant
ultimate
determination
see
considerations
inferences
may
drawn
whether
use
force
plausibly
thought
necessary
instead
evinced
wantonness
respect
unjustified
infliction
harm
tantamount
knowing
willingness
occur
see
duckworth
franzen
equating
deliberate
indifference
eighth
amendment
case
involving
security
risks
recklessness
criminal
law
implies
act
dangerous
defendant
knowledge
risk
inferred
cf
block
rutherford
requiring
pretrial
detainees
claiming
subjected
punishment
without
due
process
prove
intent
punish
show
challenged
conduct
reasonably
related
legitimate
goal
intent
punish
may
inferred
bell
wolfish
supra
equally
relevant
factors
extent
threat
safety
staff
inmates
reasonably
perceived
responsible
officials
basis
facts
known
efforts
made
temper
severity
forceful
response
potential
violent
confrontation
conflagration
jones
north
carolina
prisoners
labor
union
ripens
actual
unrest
conflict
admonition
prison
internal
security
peculiarly
matter
normally
left
discretion
prison
administrators
rhodes
chapman
supra
carries
special
weight
prison
administrators
accorded
deference
adoption
execution
policies
practices
judgment
needed
preserve
internal
order
discipline
maintain
institutional
security
bell
wolfish
deference
extends
prison
security
measure
taken
response
actual
confrontation
riotous
inmates
prophylactic
preventive
measures
intended
reduce
incidence
breaches
prison
discipline
insulate
review
actions
taken
bad
faith
legitimate
purpose
requires
neither
judge
jury
freely
substitute
judgment
officials
made
considered
choice
accordingly
ruling
motion
directed
verdict
case
courts
must
determine
whether
evidence
goes
beyond
mere
dispute
reasonableness
particular
use
force
existence
arguably
superior
alternatives
unless
appears
evidence
viewed
light
favorable
plaintiff
support
reliable
inference
wantonness
infliction
pain
standard
described
case
go
jury
iii
since
case
comes
us
decision
appeals
reversing
district
directed
verdict
petitioners
evaluate
facts
light
favorable
respondent
appeals
believed
testimony
disturbance
subsiding
time
assault
made
conflicting
expert
testimony
whether
force
used
excessive
enough
allow
jury
find
respondent
eighth
amendment
rights
violated
think
appeals
effectively
collapsed
distinction
mere
negligence
wanton
conduct
find
implicit
eighth
amendment
ordinary
errors
judgment
make
eighth
amendment
claim
evidence
create
jury
question
begin
although
evidence
taken
show
general
disturbance
quieted
guard
still
held
hostage
klenk
armed
threatening
several
inmates
armed
homemade
clubs
numerous
inmates
remained
outside
cells
cellblock
remained
control
inmates
situation
remained
dangerous
volatile
respondent
concedes
time
shot
officer
safety
question
inmate
armed
dangerous
brief
respondent
prison
officials
way
knowing
direction
matters
take
continued
negotiate
nothing
ample
reason
believe
options
presented
unacceptable
risks
respondent
expert
testimony
likewise
unavailing
one
respondent
experts
opined
petitioners
gave
inadequate
consideration
less
forceful
means
intervention
use
deadly
force
circumstances
necessary
prevent
imminent
danger
hostage
guard
inmates
tr
respondent
second
expert
testified
prison
officials
possibly
little
hasty
using
firepower
inmates
evidence
controverted
petitioners
experts
establishes
prison
officials
arguably
erred
judgment
decided
plan
employed
potentially
deadly
force
falls
far
short
showing
plausible
basis
officials
belief
degree
force
necessary
indeed
conclusion
run
counter
common
sense
light
risks
life
hostage
safety
inmates
demonstrably
persisted
notwithstanding
repeated
attempts
defuse
situation
expert
opinion
danger
imminent
way
establishes
danger
conclusion
officers
imminent
wholly
unreasonable
basic
design
plan
place
moreover
apparent
inmate
running
stairs
captain
whitley
interfering
progress
towards
hostage
reasonably
thought
present
threat
success
rescue
attempt
whitley
particularly
warning
shot
fired
sizable
group
inmates
defiance
order
apparent
support
klenk
continued
stand
open
area
lower
tier
respondent
testified
organized
group
saw
inmates
armed
clubs
area
fact
remains
officials
way
knowing
members
group
inmates
joined
klenk
destroying
furniture
breaking
glass
seizing
hostage
setting
barricade
certainly
reason
believe
members
group
might
intervene
support
klenk
perhaps
also
foreseeable
one
inmates
run
stairs
shooting
started
order
return
cells
neither
means
time
inquire
reasons
inmate
acted
consequently
order
shoot
qualified
instruction
shoot
low
falls
short
commanding
infliction
pain
wanton
unnecessary
fashion
petitioners
experts
conceded
verbal
warning
desirable
addition
warning
shot
circumstances
permitted
given
without
undue
risk
see
jury
might
conclude
omission
unreasonable
think
inference
wantonness
properly
drawn
first
warning
given
form
first
shot
fired
officer
kennicott
second
prison
officials
believed
good
faith
warning
might
endanger
success
security
measure
risk
allowed
one
inmates
climb
stairs
stopped
failure
provide
verbal
warnings
thus
insupportable
wanton
accordingly
jury
properly
find
omission
coupled
order
shoot
offended
eighth
amendment
sure
plan
adapted
take
account
appearance
respondent
scene
facts
must
take
whitley
aware
respondent
present
first
tier
benign
reasons
conceivably
whitley
added
proviso
exempting
respondent
order
shoot
prisoner
climbing
stairs
oversight
simply
rise
level
eighth
amendment
violation
officials
realistically
expected
consider
every
contingency
minimize
every
risk
far
inevitable
respondent
react
whitley
risk
life
effort
rescue
hostage
understandably
focusing
orders
essential
success
plan
failure
make
special
provision
respondent
may
unfortunate
hardly
behavior
wanton
willingness
inflict
unjustified
suffering
respondent
inferred
established
order
shoot
low
anyone
climbing
stairs
warning
shot
wanton
respondent
burden
showing
actual
shooting
constituted
wanton
unnecessary
infliction
pain
extremely
heavy
one
accepting
respondent
sought
safety
cell
lower
tier
fact
remains
respondent
thrown
floor
shot
instead
warning
shot
fired
attempted
return
cell
running
stairs
behind
whitley
equivocal
conduct
respondent
actively
involved
riot
indeed
attempted
help
matters
indication
officer
kennicott
knew
claim
acted
vindictively
retaliation
respondent
testified
started
run
stairs
froze
looked
left
saw
kennicott
locked
eyes
kennicott
testified
saw
several
inmates
running
stairs
thought
pursuing
whitley
fired
legs
extent
testimony
conflicting
resolve
conflict
respondent
favor
assuming
kennicott
shot
respondent
rather
inmates
group
establish
kennicott
shot
respondent
knowing
unnecessary
kennicott
basis
believing
respondent
constituted
threat
hostage
whitley
seconds
react
also
orders
respond
perceived
threat
precisely
manner
circumstances
actual
shooting
part
parcel
effort
restore
prison
security
violate
respondent
eighth
amendment
right
free
cruel
unusual
punishments
iv
alternative
ground
affirmance
respondent
contends
independently
eighth
amendment
shooting
deprived
protected
liberty
interest
without
due
process
law
violation
fourteenth
amendment
respondent
correctly
observes
ground
properly
raised
may
urged
basis
affirmance
appeals
decision
see
new
york
telephone
argues
maintained
throughout
litigation
constitutional
protection
use
excessive
unnecessary
force
well
use
deadly
force
without
meaningful
warning
derives
due
process
clause
well
eighth
amendment
brief
respondent
district
correct
ruling
respondent
assert
procedural
due
process
claim
state
obliged
afford
kind
hearing
either
shot
see
believe
respondent
raise
claim
substantive
rights
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
youngberg
romeo
infringed
prison
officials
shot
complaint
alleged
violations
eighth
fourteenth
amendments
app
first
amended
complaint
argument
petitioners
motion
directed
verdict
counsel
petitioners
respondents
treated
fourteenth
amendment
distinct
though
overlapping
source
substantive
protection
state
action
involving
excessive
force
see
accordingly
consider
whether
due
process
clause
serve
alternative
basis
affirmance
need
say
little
score
think
eighth
amendment
specifically
concerned
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
penal
institutions
serves
primary
source
substantive
protection
convicted
prisoners
cases
one
deliberate
use
force
challenged
excessive
unjustified
indeed
surprising
context
forceful
prison
security
measures
conduct
shocks
conscience
afford
brutality
cloak
law
violates
fourteenth
amendment
rochin
california
also
punishment
inconsistent
contemporary
standards
decency
repugnant
conscience
mankind
estelle
gamble
violation
eighth
recently
reserved
general
question
whether
something
less
intentional
conduct
recklessness
gross
negligence
enough
trigger
protections
due
process
clause
daniels
williams
case
involves
prison
inmates
rather
pretrial
detainees
persons
enjoying
unrestricted
liberty
imply
nothing
proper
answer
question
outside
prison
security
context
holding
circumstances
due
process
clause
affords
respondent
greater
protection
cruel
unusual
punishments
clause
petitioners
also
ask
us
hold
appeals
erred
ruling
enjoy
qualified
immunity
decline
review
holding
decision
petitioners
entitled
directed
verdict
merits
makes
unnecessary
judgment
appeals
reversed
share
majority
concern
prison
officials
permitted
respond
reasonably
inmate
disturbances
without
unwarranted
fear
liability
agree
threshold
establishing
constitutional
violation
circumstances
high
agree
however
contested
existence
riot
prison
lessens
constraints
imposed
prison
authorities
eighth
amendment
majority
erred
believe
developing
legal
analysis
employing
first
especially
onerous
standard
devised
determining
whether
prisoner
injured
prison
disturbance
subjected
cruel
unusual
punishment
incorrect
justified
precedent
standard
particularly
inappropriate
courts
deciding
whether
apply
must
resolve
preliminary
issue
fact
often
disputed
properly
left
jury
finally
applied
test
improperly
facts
case
reasons
must
respectfully
dissent
properly
begins
acknowledging
prisoner
attempting
prove
violation
eighth
amendment
express
intent
inflict
unnecessary
pain
required
estelle
gamble
ante
rather
cases
established
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
prisoners
constitutes
cruel
unusual
punishment
prohibited
eighth
amendment
even
absence
intent
harm
ibid
see
also
ingraham
wright
gregg
georgia
joint
opinion
stewart
powell
stevens
correctly
articulated
teaching
cases
issue
however
majority
inexplicably
arrives
conclusion
constitutional
violation
context
prison
uprising
established
force
used
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
ante
thus
requiring
express
intent
inflict
unnecessary
pain
properly
disavowed
imposes
heightened
version
unnecessary
wanton
standard
injury
occurred
course
disturbance
poses
significant
risks
ante
questions
whether
disturbance
existed
whether
posed
risk
likely
hotly
contested
inappropriate
say
least
condition
choice
legal
standard
purpose
determine
whether
send
constitutional
claim
jury
upon
resolution
factual
disputes
many
cases
resolved
jury
correct
standard
identifying
violation
eighth
amendment
cases
clearly
unnecessary
wanton
standard
establishes
high
hurdle
overcome
prisoner
seeking
relief
constitutional
violation
full
circumstances
plaintiff
injury
including
whether
inflicted
attempt
quell
riot
whether
reasonable
apprehension
danger
considered
factfinder
determining
whether
standard
satisfied
particular
case
simply
justification
creating
distinct
onerous
burden
plaintiff
meet
merely
judge
believes
injury
issue
caused
disturbance
pose
significant
risks
safety
inmates
prison
staff
ante
determination
whether
disturbance
risk
disputed
made
jury
resolves
disputed
facts
role
arbiter
law
see
byrd
blue
ridge
cooperative
ii
properly
begins
application
law
reciting
principle
facts
must
viewed
light
favorable
respondent
reversal
directed
verdict
see
galloway
reasonable
interpretation
facts
jury
found
unnecessary
wanton
standard
met
directed
verdict
improper
majority
opinion
however
resolves
factual
disputes
record
petitioners
favor
discounts
much
respondent
theory
case
entitled
majority
pays
short
shrift
respondent
significant
contention
disturbance
quieted
time
lethal
force
employed
ante
respondent
presented
substantial
testimony
show
disturbance
subsided
tr
one
prisoner
klenk
remained
way
disruptive
even
klenk
calmed
enough
point
admit
gone
far
majority
asserts
guard
still
held
hostage
klenk
armed
threatening
several
inmates
armed
homemade
clubs
numerous
inmates
remained
outside
cells
situation
remained
dangerous
volatile
ante
respondent
evidence
however
indicated
guard
fact
danger
put
cell
several
inmates
prevent
klenk
harming
tr
captain
whitley
see
guard
observed
inmates
protecting
klenk
armed
promised
keep
klenk
stipulation
according
respondent
evidence
moreover
inmates
assisting
klenk
way
riot
squad
called
simply
milling
around
waiting
klenk
taken
custody
orders
return
cells
respondent
evidence
tended
show
situation
remained
dangerous
volatile
ante
contrary
calm
although
sees
fit
emphasize
repeatedly
risks
life
hostage
safety
inmates
demonstrably
persisted
notwithstanding
repeated
attempts
defuse
situation
point
respondent
bitterly
disputed
risk
guards
inmates
persisted
believe
story
treatment
expert
testimony
equally
insensitive
obligation
resolve
disputes
favor
respondent
respondent
experts
testified
use
deadly
force
circumstances
justified
necessity
prevent
imminent
danger
officers
inmates
tr
force
used
excessive
ibid
even
deadly
force
justified
unreasonable
unleash
force
without
clear
warning
allow
nonparticipating
inmates
return
cells
insofar
expert
testimony
ever
useful
show
prison
authorities
engaged
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
even
though
always
amount
opinion
regarding
circumstances
injury
see
ante
respondent
expert
evidence
contributed
creation
factual
issue
majority
characterizes
petitioners
error
using
deadly
force
justified
oversight
ante
endorsement
petitioners
rendition
facts
portrayed
respondent
evidence
error
made
cold
blood
respondent
involvement
started
request
one
inmates
approached
petitioner
whitley
talking
klenk
ask
whitley
supply
key
gate
elderly
sick
patients
medical
cells
near
area
disturbance
removed
tear
gas
used
tr
captain
whitley
said
go
get
key
left
cellblock
ibid
two
three
minutes
whitley
returned
respondent
went
door
cellblock
asked
whitley
brought
key
whitley
responded
turned
head
back
yelled
let
go
let
go
shoot
bastards
ibid
respondent
afraid
ran
position
door
headed
stairs
route
back
cell
caught
movement
corner
eye
looked
direction
saw
petitioner
kennicott
according
respondent
froze
looked
locked
eyes
looked
seen
shotgun
hand
seen
flash
next
thing
know
sitting
grabbing
leg
losing
great
deal
blood
respondent
crawled
stairs
fell
face
trying
get
range
shotguns
ibid
minutes
officer
grabbed
respondent
hair
dragged
downstairs
lay
another
officer
came
stood
respondent
shoved
barrel
gun
gas
pistol
respondent
face
respondent
left
lying
bleeding
profusely
approximately
minutes
taken
prison
hospital
suffered
severe
injury
meanwhile
klenk
subdued
resistance
whitley
unarmed
testimony
showed
although
inmates
assembled
area
clearly
participating
misconduct
received
warning
instructions
opportunity
leave
area
return
cells
officers
started
shooting
neither
respondent
inmate
attempted
impede
officers
entered
cellblock
officers
described
wild
agitated
excited
full
control
emotions
one
officer
prior
entering
cellblock
told
others
shoot
asses
klenk
gets
way
kill
ibid
time
assault
cellblock
described
quiet
jury
credited
respondent
testimony
witnesses
believed
one
inmate
temporarily
control
klenk
scared
high
ready
give
disturbance
block
lasted
minutes
subsided
appeared
lasting
danger
anyone
respondent
shot
stood
motionless
stairs
left
bleed
perilously
long
time
receiving
assistance
iii
part
iii
opinion
falls
far
short
rendition
events
light
favorable
respondent
light
facts
present
close
question
whether
prison
officials
infliction
pain
respondent
said
display
level
wantonness
necessary
make
constitutional
violation
least
clear
people
differ
response
question
takes
preclude
directed
verdict
majority
suggests
existence
appropriate
alternative
measures
controlling
prison
disturbances
irrelevant
constitutional
inquiry
surely
mean
appears
say
prison
officials
drop
bomb
cellblock
order
halt
fistfight
two
inmates
example
feel
confident
difficulty
concluding
matter
law
action
sufficiently
wanton
present
jury
question
even
though
concededly
taken
effort
restore
order
prison
thus
question
wantonness
context
prison
disorder
claims
mistreatment
eighth
amendment
matter
degree
precisely
cases
like
one
shading
facts
one
way
result
different
legal
conclusions
jury
permitted
job
properly
instructed
jury
take
account
petitioners
legitimate
need
protect
security
extent
danger
presented
reasonableness
force
used
assessing
liability
moreover
jury
know
prisoner
burden
heavy
one
establish
eighth
amendment
violation
circumstances
whether
respondent
able
meet
burden
question
jury
usurpation
jury
function
dissent
affirm
judgment
appeals
footnotes
majority
also
rejects
pure
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
claim
asserted
respondent
district
reasons
stated
justice
blackmun
dissent
davidson
cannon
joined
believe
evidence
precluding
directed
verdict
unnecessary
wanton
standard
also
precludes
directed
verdict
respondent
due
process
claim
justice
stevens
join