hope
pelzer
et
argued
april
decided
june
petitioner
hope
alabama
prison
inmate
twice
handcuffed
hitching
post
disruptive
conduct
period
may
offered
drinking
water
bathroom
break
every
minutes
responses
recorded
activity
log
handcuffed
shoulder
height
tried
moving
arms
improve
circulation
handcuffs
cut
wrists
causing
pain
discomfort
altercation
guard
chain
gang
worksite
june
hope
subdued
handcuffed
placed
leg
irons
transported
back
prison
ordered
take
shirt
thus
exposing
sun
spent
seven
hours
hitching
post
given
one
two
water
breaks
bathroom
breaks
guard
taunted
thirst
hope
filed
suit
three
guards
without
deciding
whether
placing
hope
hitching
post
punishment
violated
eighth
amendment
magistrate
judge
found
guards
entitled
qualified
immunity
district
entered
summary
judgment
respondents
eleventh
circuit
affirmed
latter
answered
constitutional
question
finding
hitching
post
use
punitive
purposes
violated
eighth
amendment
finding
guards
nevertheless
entitled
qualified
immunity
concluded
hope
show
required
circuit
precedent
federal
law
guards
conduct
evaluated
established
cases
materially
similar
facts
case
held
defense
qualified
immunity
precluded
summary
judgment
phase
pp
hope
allegations
true
establish
eighth
amendment
violation
among
unnecessary
wanton
inflictions
pain
constituting
cruel
unusual
punishment
forbidden
amendment
totally
without
penological
justification
rhodes
chapman
determination
made
context
prison
conditions
ascertaining
whether
official
acted
deliberate
indifference
inmates
health
safety
hudson
mcmillian
state
mind
inferred
fact
risk
harm
obvious
farmer
brennan
eighth
amendment
violation
obvious
facts
alleged
safety
concerns
long
since
abated
time
hope
handcuffed
hitching
post
already
subdued
handcuffed
placed
leg
irons
transported
back
prison
separated
work
squad
given
opportunity
return
despite
clear
lack
emergency
respondents
knowingly
subjected
substantial
risk
physical
harm
unnecessary
pain
unnecessary
exposure
sun
prolonged
thirst
taunting
deprivation
bathroom
breaks
created
risk
particular
discomfort
humiliation
pp
respondents
may
nevertheless
shielded
liability
constitutionally
impermissible
conduct
actions
violate
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
harlow
fitzgerald
assessment
eleventh
circuit
erred
requiring
facts
previous
cases
hope
case
materially
similar
qualified
immunity
operates
ensure
subjected
suit
officers
notice
conduct
unlawful
officers
sued
civil
action
fair
notice
right
defendants
charged
makes
crime
state
official
act
willfully
color
state
deprive
person
constitutional
rights
opinion
lanier
case
makes
clear
officials
notice
conduct
violates
established
law
even
novel
factual
situations
indeed
expressly
rejected
requirement
previous
cases
fundamentally
similar
accordingly
salient
question
eleventh
circuit
asked
whether
state
law
gave
respondents
fair
warning
hope
alleged
treatment
unconstitutional
pp
reasonable
officer
known
using
hitching
post
hope
alleged
unlawful
obvious
cruelty
inherent
practice
provided
respondents
notice
conduct
unconstitutional
addition
binding
circuit
precedent
given
notice
gates
collier
found
several
forms
corporal
punishment
impermissible
including
handcuffing
inmates
fences
cells
long
periods
ort
white
warned
physical
abuse
directed
prisoner
terminate
resistance
authority
constitute
actionable
eighth
amendment
violation
relevant
question
whether
ort
provided
fair
notice
subsequent
alabama
department
corrections
adoc
regulation
specifying
procedures
using
hitching
post
included
allowing
inmate
rejoin
squad
tells
officer
ready
work
regularly
observed
provision
made
hope
case
less
like
kind
punishment
ort
described
impermissible
conduct
showing
provision
sham
respondents
ignore
impunity
provides
equally
strong
support
conclusion
fully
aware
wrongful
conduct
conclusion
also
buttressed
fact
justice
department
specifically
advised
adoc
constitutional
infirmity
practices
incidents
case
took
place
pp
reversed
stevens
delivered
opinion
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
joined
larry
hope
petitioner
mark
pelzer
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
eleventh
circuit
june
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
appeals
eleventh
circuit
concluded
petitioner
larry
hope
former
prison
inmate
limestone
prison
alabama
subjected
cruel
unusual
punishment
prison
guards
twice
handcuffed
hitching
post
sanction
disruptive
conduct
conclusion
supported
earlier
cases
materially
similar
facts
held
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
therefore
affirmed
summary
judgment
favor
granted
certiorari
determine
whether
appeals
qualified
immunity
holding
comports
decision
lanier
alabama
state
followed
practice
chaining
inmates
one
another
work
squads
also
state
handcuffed
prisoners
hitching
posts
either
refused
work
otherwise
disrupted
work
hope
handcuffed
hitching
post
two
occasions
may
hope
working
chain
gang
near
interstate
highway
got
argument
another
inmate
men
taken
back
limestone
prison
handcuffed
hitching
post
hope
released
two
hours
later
guard
captain
determined
altercation
caused
inmate
two
hours
post
hope
offered
drinking
water
bathroom
break
every
minutes
responses
offers
recorded
activity
log
slightly
taller
hitching
post
arms
shoulder
height
grew
tired
handcuffed
high
whenever
tried
moving
arms
improve
circulation
handcuffs
cut
wrists
causing
pain
discomfort
june
hope
punished
severely
took
nap
morning
bus
ride
chain
gang
worksite
arrived
less
prompt
responding
order
get
bus
exchange
vulgar
remarks
led
wrestling
match
guard
four
guards
intervened
subdued
hope
handcuffed
placed
leg
irons
transported
back
prison
put
hitching
post
guards
made
take
shirt
remained
shirtless
day
sun
burned
remained
attached
post
approximately
seven
hours
period
given
water
twice
given
bathroom
one
point
guard
taunted
hope
thirst
according
hope
affidavit
guard
first
gave
water
dogs
brought
water
cooler
closer
removed
lid
kicked
cooler
spilling
water
onto
ground
app
hope
filed
suit
rev
stat
district
northern
district
alabama
three
guards
involved
may
incident
one
also
handcuffed
hitching
post
june
case
referred
magistrate
judge
treated
responsive
affidavits
filed
defendants
motion
summary
judgment
without
deciding
whether
act
placing
restraining
bar
period
hours
form
punishment
violated
eighth
amendment
magistrate
concluded
guards
entitled
qualified
supplemental
app
pet
cert
district
agreed
entered
judgment
respondents
appeals
eleventh
circuit
affirmed
reaching
qualified
immunity
issue
however
answered
constitutional
question
district
bypassed
found
use
hitching
post
punitive
purposes
violated
eighth
amendment
nevertheless
applying
circuit
precedent
concerning
qualified
immunity
stated
federal
law
government
official
conduct
evaluated
must
preexisting
obvious
mandatory
established
abstractions
cases
materially
facts
case
front
us
concluded
facts
two
precedents
hope
primarily
relied
ort
white
gates
collier
hough
analogous
materially
similar
hope
situation
granted
certiorari
review
eleventh
circuit
qualified
immunity
holding
ii
threshold
inquiry
must
undertake
qualified
immunity
analysis
whether
plaintiff
allegations
true
establish
constitutional
violation
saucier
katz
appeals
held
policy
practice
cuffing
inmate
hitching
post
similar
stationary
object
period
time
surpasses
necessary
quell
threat
restore
order
violation
eighth
amendment
rejected
respondents
submission
hope
ended
shackling
offering
return
work
finding
instead
purpose
practice
circumstances
confinement
created
substantial
risk
harm
officers
aware
moreover
relied
circuit
precedent
condemning
similar
results
department
justice
doj
report
found
alabama
systematic
use
hitching
post
improper
corporal
agree
appeals
attachment
hope
hitching
post
circumstances
alleged
case
violated
eighth
unnecessary
wanton
infliction
pain
constitutes
cruel
unusual
punishment
forbidden
eighth
amendment
whitley
albers
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
said
mong
unnecessary
wanton
inflictions
pain
totally
without
penological
justification
rhodes
chapman
making
determination
context
prison
conditions
must
ascertain
whether
officials
involved
acted
deliberate
indifference
inmates
health
safety
hudson
mcmillian
may
infer
existence
subjective
state
mind
fact
risk
harm
obvious
farmer
brennan
facts
alleged
hope
eighth
amendment
violation
obvious
safety
concerns
long
since
abated
time
petitioner
handcuffed
hitching
post
hope
already
subdued
handcuffed
placed
leg
irons
transported
back
prison
separated
work
squad
given
opportunity
return
work
despite
clear
lack
emergency
situation
respondents
knowingly
subjected
substantial
risk
physical
harm
unnecessary
pain
caused
handcuffs
restricted
position
confinement
period
unnecessary
exposure
heat
sun
prolonged
thirst
taunting
deprivation
bathroom
breaks
created
risk
particular
discomfort
use
hitching
post
circumstances
violated
basic
concept
underlying
eighth
amendment
nothing
less
dignity
man
trop
dulles
punitive
treatment
amounts
gratuitous
infliction
wanton
unnecessary
pain
precedent
clearly
prohibits
iii
despite
participation
constitutionally
impermissible
conduct
respondents
may
nevertheless
shielded
liability
civil
damages
actions
violate
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
harlow
fitzgerald
assessing
whether
eighth
amendment
violation
met
harlow
test
appeals
required
facts
previous
cases
materially
similar
hope
situation
rigid
gloss
qualified
immunity
standard
though
supported
circuit
consistent
cases
explained
qualified
immunity
operates
ensure
subjected
suit
officers
notice
conduct
unlawful
saucier
katz
say
light
law
unlawfulness
must
apparent
anderson
creighton
officers
sued
civil
action
damages
right
fair
notice
defendants
charged
criminal
offense
defined
section
makes
crime
state
official
act
willfully
color
law
deprive
person
rights
protected
constitution
lanier
held
defendant
entitled
fair
warning
conduct
deprived
victim
constitutional
right
standard
determining
adequacy
warning
standard
determining
whether
constitutional
right
clearly
established
civil
litigation
lanier
appeals
held
indictment
charge
offense
constitutional
right
allegedly
violated
identified
earlier
case
involving
factual
situation
fundamentally
one
issue
citing
lanier
appeals
assumed
defendant
criminal
case
entitled
degree
notice
substantially
higher
clearly
established
standard
used
judge
qualified
civil
cases
reversed
explaining
fair
warning
requirement
identical
qualified
immunity
standard
pointed
upheld
convictions
despite
notable
factual
distinctions
precedents
relied
cases
long
prior
decisions
gave
reasonable
warning
conduct
issue
violated
constitutional
rights
explained
say
course
single
warning
standard
points
single
level
specificity
sufficient
every
instance
circumstances
earlier
case
expressly
leaves
open
whether
general
rule
applies
particular
type
conduct
issue
high
degree
prior
factual
particularity
may
necessary
general
statements
law
inherently
incapable
giving
fair
clear
warning
instances
general
constitutional
rule
already
identified
decisional
law
may
apply
obvious
clarity
specific
conduct
question
even
though
action
question
previously
held
unlawful
anderson
supra
citation
omitted
opinion
lanier
thus
makes
clear
officials
still
notice
conduct
violates
established
law
even
novel
factual
circumstances
indeed
lanier
expressly
rejected
requirement
previous
cases
fundamentally
similar
although
earlier
cases
involving
fundamentally
similar
facts
provide
especially
strong
support
conclusion
law
clearly
established
necessary
finding
true
cases
materially
similar
facts
accordingly
pursuant
lanier
salient
question
appeals
asked
whether
state
law
gave
respondents
fair
warning
alleged
treatment
hope
unconstitutional
question
turn
iv
use
hitching
post
alleged
hope
unnecessar
ily
wanton
ly
inflicted
pain
whitley
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
thus
clear
violation
eighth
amendment
see
part
ii
supra
arguably
violation
obvious
eighth
amendment
cases
gave
respondents
fair
warning
conduct
violated
constitution
regardless
light
binding
eleventh
circuit
precedent
alabama
department
corrections
adoc
regulation
doj
report
informing
adoc
constitutional
infirmity
use
hitching
post
readily
conclude
respondents
conduct
violated
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
harlow
cases
decided
appeals
fifth
circuit
binding
precedent
eleventh
circuit
today
see
bonner
pritchard
one
cases
decided
appeals
reviewed
district
decision
finding
number
constitutional
violations
administration
mississippi
prisons
gates
collier
opinion
squarely
held
several
forms
corporal
punishment
run
afoul
eighth
amendment
offend
contemporary
concepts
decency
human
dignity
precepts
civilization
profess
possess
among
forms
punishment
handcuffing
inmates
fence
cells
long
periods
time
forcing
inmates
stand
sit
lie
crates
stumps
otherwise
maintain
awkward
positions
prolonged
periods
ibid
fact
gates
found
several
forms
punishment
impermissible
respondents
suggest
lessen
force
holding
respect
handcuffing
inmates
cells
fences
long
periods
time
purpose
providing
fair
notice
reasonable
officers
administering
punishment
past
misconduct
reason
draw
constitutional
distinction
practice
handcuffing
inmate
fence
prolonged
periods
handcuffing
hitching
post
seven
hours
appeals
conclusion
contrary
exposes
danger
rigid
overreliance
factual
similarity
government
submits
brief
amicus
curiae
reasonable
officer
concluded
constitutional
holding
gates
turned
fact
inmates
handcuffed
fences
bars
cells
rather
specially
designed
metal
bar
designated
shackling
anything
use
designated
hitching
post
highlights
constitutional
problem
brief
amicus
curiae
light
gates
unlawfulness
alleged
conduct
apparent
respondents
reasoning
though
holding
case
decided
eleventh
circuit
sent
message
reasonable
officers
circuit
ort
white
appeals
held
officer
temporary
denials
drinking
water
inmate
repeatedly
refused
share
work
assigned
farm
squad
viewed
punishment
strict
sense
instead
necessary
coercive
measures
undertaken
obtain
compliance
reasonable
prison
rule
requirement
inmates
perform
assigned
farm
squad
duties
officer
clear
motive
encourage
ort
comply
rules
work
required
receive
water
like
everyone
else
ibid
cautioned
however
constitutional
violation
might
present
later
back
prison
officials
decided
deny
ort
water
punishment
refusal
work
violation
occurred
method
coercion
reached
point
severity
recalcitrant
prisoner
health
risk
ibid
although
facts
case
identical
ort
premise
physical
abuse
directed
prisoner
terminate
resistance
authority
constitute
actionable
eighth
amendment
violation
premise
clear
applicability
case
hope
restrained
worksite
willing
return
work
rather
removed
back
prison
placed
conditions
threatened
health
ort
therefore
gave
fair
warning
respondents
conduct
crossed
line
constitutionally
permissible
relevant
question
whether
ort
provided
fair
warning
respondents
conduct
violated
constitution
regulation
promulgated
adoc
regulation
authorizes
use
hitching
post
inmate
refuses
work
otherwise
disruptive
work
squad
provides
activity
log
completed
inmate
detailing
responses
offers
water
bathroom
breaks
every
minutes
log
completed
maintained
petitioner
shackling
may
record
contains
log
shackling
june
record
indicates
periodic
offers
contemplated
regulation
made
app
regulation
also
inmate
allowed
join
assigned
squad
whenever
tells
officer
ready
go
work
findings
austin
hopper
supp
md
well
record
case
indicate
important
provision
regulation
frequently
ignored
corrections
officers
regularly
observed
requirement
effectively
give
inmate
keys
handcuffs
attached
hitching
post
made
case
analogous
practice
upheld
ort
rather
kind
punishment
ort
described
impermissible
course
conduct
tends
prove
requirement
merely
sham
respondents
ignore
impunity
provides
equally
strong
support
conclusion
fully
aware
wrongful
character
conduct
respondents
violated
clearly
established
law
conclusion
reasonable
person
known
harlow
violation
buttressed
fact
doj
specifically
advised
adoc
unconstitutionality
practices
incidents
case
took
place
doj
conducted
study
alabama
use
hitching
post
among
findings
doj
report
noted
adoc
officers
consistently
failed
comply
policy
immediately
releasing
inmate
hitching
post
agrees
return
work
doj
concluded
systematic
use
restraining
bar
alabama
constituted
improper
corporal
punishment
ibid
accordingly
doj
advised
adoc
cease
use
hitching
post
order
meet
constitutional
standards
adoc
replied
thought
post
permissibly
used
preserve
prison
security
discipline
ibid
response
doj
informed
adoc
lthough
emergency
situation
may
warrant
drastic
action
corrections
staff
experts
found
rail
used
systematically
improper
punishment
relatively
trivial
offenses
therefore
concluded
use
rail
without
penological
justification
ibid
although
nothing
record
indicating
doj
views
communicated
respondents
exchange
lends
support
view
reasonable
officials
adoc
realized
use
hitching
post
circumstances
alleged
hope
violated
eighth
amendment
prohibition
cruel
unusual
punishment
obvious
cruelty
inherent
practice
provided
respondents
notice
alleged
conduct
violated
hope
constitutional
protection
cruel
unusual
punishment
hope
treated
way
antithetical
human
dignity
hitched
post
extended
period
time
position
painful
circumstances
degrading
dangerous
wanton
treatment
done
necessity
punishment
prior
conduct
even
might
question
regarding
constitutionality
practice
eleventh
circuit
precedent
gates
ort
well
doj
report
condemning
practice
put
reasonable
officer
notice
use
hitching
post
circumstances
alleged
hope
unlawful
fair
clear
warning
lanier
cases
provided
sufficient
preclude
defense
qualified
immunity
summary
judgment
stage
response
justice
thomas
thoughtful
dissent
make
following
three
observations
first
granting
certiorari
review
summary
judgment
entered
favor
officers
take
question
sufficiency
pleadings
affidavits
raise
genuine
possibility
three
named
officers
responsible
punitive
acts
shackling
alleged
questions
raised
petitioner
plaintiff
summary
judgment
entered
go
application
standard
immunity
available
official
acts
clear
reasonable
officer
conduct
unlawful
situation
confronted
saucier
katz
officers
brief
opposition
certiorari
likewise
addressed
legal
standard
clearly
established
resulting
focus
case
eleventh
circuit
position
violation
clearly
established
unless
subject
prior
case
liability
facts
materially
similar
charged
take
pass
upon
questions
whether
extent
three
named
officers
may
held
responsible
acts
charged
proved
nothing
decision
forecloses
defense
qualified
immunity
ground
relied
upon
appeals
second
may
address
immunity
question
assumption
act
field
discipline
charged
occasion
handcuffing
hope
hitching
post
extended
period
apparently
inflict
gratuitous
pain
discomfort
justification
threatened
harm
continuing
refusal
work
neither
occasion
hope
refus
work
encourag
inmates
refuse
work
appeals
clearly
held
act
cuffing
petitioner
hitching
post
suffice
unconstitutional
act
find
cuffing
inmate
hitching
post
period
time
extending
past
required
address
immediate
danger
threat
violation
eighth
amendment
ibid
although
continued
violation
exacerbated
lack
proper
clothing
water
bathroom
breaks
embellishment
basis
decision
decision
adequately
rests
assumption
sufficed
appeals
third
applying
objective
immunity
test
reasonable
officer
understand
significance
federal
judicial
precedent
function
part
judiciary
structure
unreported
district
opinions
cited
officers
distinguishable
regardless
match
circuit
gates
collier
held
handcuffing
inmates
fence
cells
long
periods
time
unconstitutional
ort
white
suggested
unconstitutional
inflict
gratuitous
pain
inmate
refusing
water
punishment
unnecessary
enforce
discipline
vitality
gates
ort
seriously
questioned
light
decisions
holding
gratuitous
infliction
punishment
unconstitutional
even
prison
context
see
supra
citing
whitley
albers
rhodes
chapman
judgment
appeals
reversed
ordered
larry
hope
petitioner
mark
pelzer
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
eleventh
circuit
june
justice
thomas
chief
justice
justice
scalia
join
dissenting
today
subjects
three
prison
guards
suit
based
facts
alleged
law
clearly
established
subjective
views
appropriate
methods
prison
discipline
qualified
immunity
jurisprudence
turned
head
petitioner
larry
hope
file
action
state
alabama
sue
alabama
prison
guards
responsible
looking
two
instances
handcuffed
restraining
chose
instead
maintain
lawsuit
three
prison
guards
officer
gene
mcclaran
sergeant
mark
pelzer
lieutenant
jim
gates
see
therefore
strange
course
deciding
none
three
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
even
bother
mention
nature
petitioner
specific
allegations
mcclaran
pelzer
gates
omission
glaring
telling
one
examines
alleged
conduct
prison
guards
parties
action
opposed
alleged
conduct
guards
parties
action
petitioner
case
becomes
far
less
compelling
imprecise
account
facts
requires
specific
nature
petitioner
allegations
three
respondents
recounted
petitioner
claims
may
officer
mcclaran
ordered
petitioner
affixed
restraining
bar
sergeant
pelzer
date
affixed
restraining
bar
lieutenant
gates
may
june
affixed
petitioner
sum
substance
petitioner
allegations
respect
mcclaran
pelzer
petitioner
never
alleged
participated
june
incident
appalls
respect
lieutenant
gates
petitioner
never
alleged
gates
either
participated
responsible
june
events
recounted
attaching
petitioner
bar
petitioner
never
contended
gates
looked
otherwise
supervised
bar
see
second
affidavit
larry
hope
nd
record
doc
petitioner
ever
claimed
gates
responsible
keeping
bar
seven
hours
removing
denying
water
taunting
thirst
giving
water
dogs
petitioner
plain
view
see
ibid
relevance
facts
repeatedly
referenced
course
legal
analysis
see
ante
therefore
escapes
events
referenced
opinion
even
arguably
gleaned
record
instance
claims
june
petitioner
given
bathroom
breaks
ante
time
bar
petitioner
never
alleged
gates
prison
guard
refused
bathroom
breaks
date
see
second
affidavit
larry
hope
record
doc
matter
fact
district
expressly
found
petitioner
denied
restroom
breaks
supplemental
app
pet
cert
addition
photographs
taken
petitioner
attached
restraining
bar
june
show
wearing
revealing
minimum
petitioner
shirtless
day
see
second
affidavit
larry
hope
exhs
record
doc
verifying
photographs
taken
hitching
post
june
one
understands
petitioner
specific
allegations
respondents
eighth
amendment
violation
case
far
obvious
ante
obvious
however
explanation
respondents
violated
eighth
amendment
woefully
incomplete
merely
recounts
petitioner
allegations
regarding
events
june
concludes
use
hitching
post
circumstances
violated
basic
concept
underlying
eighth
amendment
nothing
less
dignity
man
ante
quoting
trop
dulles
however
fails
explain
respondents
mcclaran
pelzer
violated
eighth
amendment
given
involvement
whatsoever
affixing
petitioner
restraining
bar
june
reasoning
applied
respondent
gates
similarly
inadequate
since
petitioner
never
alleged
gates
bore
responsibility
conduct
june
supposedly
renders
eighth
amendment
violation
obvious
ii
petitioner
allegations
regarding
respondents
conduct
separated
grievances
mistreatment
invented
case
presents
one
simple
question
clearly
established
mere
act
cuffing
petitioner
restraining
bar
case
officer
mcclaran
ordering
petitioner
attachment
restraining
bar
violated
eighth
amendment
answer
question
also
simple
obviously
correctly
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
unless
conduct
violated
clearly
established
statutory
constitutional
rights
reasonable
person
known
ante
quoting
harlow
fitzgerald
fails
either
discuss
apply
following
important
principles
qualified
immunity
protects
plainly
incompetent
knowingly
violate
law
malley
briggs
clear
reasonable
officer
conduct
unlawful
situation
confronted
qualified
immunity
apply
saucier
katz
hand
officers
reasonable
competence
disagree
th
issue
immunity
recognized
malley
supra
evaluating
whether
clearly
established
respondents
conduct
violated
eighth
amendment
appeals
properly
noted
important
analyze
facts
prior
cases
relied
upon
petitioner
courts
found
eighth
amendment
violations
determine
materially
similar
facts
case
front
us
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
right
suffer
cruel
unusual
punishments
amdt
extremely
abstract
general
right
vast
majority
cases
text
eighth
amendment
give
government
official
sufficient
notice
clearly
established
eighth
amendment
law
applicable
particular
rather
one
must
look
case
law
see
whether
right
official
alleged
violated
clearly
established
particularized
hence
relevant
sense
contours
right
must
sufficiently
clear
reasonable
official
understand
violates
right
anderson
creighton
conducting
inquiry
crucial
look
precedent
applying
relevant
legal
rule
similar
factual
circumstances
cases
give
government
officials
best
indication
conduct
unlawful
given
situation
instance
various
courts
agreed
certain
conduct
constitutes
eighth
amendment
violation
facts
distinguishable
fair
way
facts
presented
case
hand
saucier
supra
plaintiff
compelling
argument
defendant
entitled
qualified
immunity
say
course
conduct
clearly
established
unlawful
already
passed
legality
behavior
materially
similar
circumstances
certain
actions
obviously
run
afoul
law
assertion
qualified
immunity
may
overcome
even
though
decisions
yet
address
materially
similar
conduct
puts
officials
still
notice
conduct
violates
established
law
even
novel
factual
circumstances
ante
although
argues
appeals
improperly
imposed
rigid
gloss
qualified
immunity
standard
ante
requiring
facts
previous
case
materially
similar
plaintiff
circumstances
qualified
immunity
overcome
suggestion
plainly
wrong
rather
appeals
repeatedly
made
clear
imposes
requirement
plaintiffs
seeking
defeat
assertion
qualified
immunity
see
priester
riviera
beach
stating
qualified
immunity
apply
official
conduct
far
beyond
hazy
border
excessive
acceptable
force
official
know
violating
constitution
even
without
caselaw
point
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
smith
mattox
noting
plaintiff
overcome
assertion
qualified
immunity
demonstrating
official
conduct
lies
obviously
core
constitution
prohibits
unlawfulness
conduct
readily
apparent
official
notwithstanding
lack
caselaw
lassiter
alabama
ccasionally
words
federal
statute
federal
constitutional
provision
specific
enough
establish
law
applicable
particular
circumstances
clearly
overcome
qualified
immunity
even
absence
caselaw
similarly
unfair
read
appeals
decision
adopting
rigid
gloss
nowhere
appeals
state
petitioner
order
overcome
respondents
assertion
qualified
immunity
required
produce
precedent
addressing
materially
similar
facts
rather
appeals
merely
sensibly
evaluated
cases
relied
upon
petitioner
determine
whether
involved
facts
materially
similar
present
case
see
important
analyze
facts
cases
determine
materially
similar
facts
case
front
us
sure
appeals
also
ask
whether
respondents
conduct
obviously
violated
eighth
amendment
respondents
assertion
qualified
immunity
overcome
absence
case
law
involving
materially
similar
facts
majority
must
believe
appeals
therefore
implicitly
abandoned
prior
qualified
immunity
jurisprudence
hand
believe
far
likely
appeals
omitted
discussion
opinion
much
simpler
reason
given
petitioners
allegations
thought
argument
weak
alleged
actions
respondents
far
removed
hazy
border
excessive
acceptable
force
priester
supra
quoting
smith
supra
worth
mentioning
turning
merits
respondents
assertion
entitled
qualified
immunity
relevant
question
whether
clear
mcclaran
pelzer
gates
attaching
petitioner
restraining
bar
violated
eighth
amendment
notes
time
alabama
state
used
particular
disciplinary
method
prisoners
refused
work
disrupted
work
squads
see
ante
previous
litigation
alabama
use
restraining
bar
however
nothing
warn
reasonable
alabama
prison
guards
attaching
prisoner
restraining
bar
unlawful
let
alone
illegality
conduct
clearly
established
fact
outcome
cases
effectively
forecloses
petitioner
claim
clear
respondents
handcuffing
petitioner
restraining
bar
violated
eighth
amendment
example
year
conduct
issue
case
took
place
district
northern
district
alabama
rejected
eighth
amendment
claim
alabama
prisoner
attached
restraining
bar
five
hours
refused
work
scuffled
guards
see
lane
findley
district
reasoned
attaching
prisoner
restraining
bar
measured
response
potentially
volatile
situation
clear
warning
inmates
refusal
work
result
immediate
discipline
subjecting
offending
inmate
similar
conditions
experienced
work
detail
inmates
rather
return
inside
institution
district
therefore
concluded
substantial
penological
justification
attaching
plaintiff
restraining
bar
ibid
petitioner
attempt
distinguish
case
lane
grounds
prisoner
lane
offered
regular
water
bathroom
breaks
restraining
bar
see
ante
reply
brief
petitioner
argument
fails
two
reasons
respondents
mcclaran
pelzer
involved
may
incident
undisputed
petitioner
offered
water
bathroom
break
every
minutes
hours
bar
day
petitioner
previously
mentioned
never
alleged
respondent
gates
responsible
denying
water
bathroom
breaks
june
year
decided
lane
district
northern
district
alabama
dismissed
another
complaint
filed
alabama
prisoner
handcuffed
restraining
bar
case
prisoner
refusing
leave
prison
grounds
work
squad
handcuffed
restraining
bar
eight
hours
temperatures
allegedly
reached
degrees
prisoner
attached
bar
allegedly
denied
food
water
opportunities
use
bathroom
facilities
see
whitson
gillikin
app
result
handcuffed
bar
prisoner
suffered
lacerations
pain
swelling
arms
district
without
deciding
whether
defendants
conduct
violated
eighth
amendment
held
clearly
established
law
identifying
behavior
unconstitutional
federal
district
courts
five
alabama
cases
decided
similarly
rejected
claims
handcuffing
prisoner
restraining
bar
stationary
object
violated
eighth
amendment
see
ashby
dees
nd
fence
vinson
thompson
md
restraining
bar
hollis
folsom
md
fence
williamson
anderson
md
fence
dale
murphy
sd
light
pole
contrast
petitioner
unable
point
alabama
decision
issued
respondents
affixed
restraining
bar
holding
prison
guard
engaging
conduct
violated
eighth
amendment
face
decisions
absence
contrary
authority
find
impossible
conclude
respondents
either
plainly
incompetent
knowingly
violat
ing
law
affixed
petitioner
restraining
bar
malley
reasonably
competent
prison
guard
attempting
obey
law
entitled
look
courts
recently
evaluated
colleagues
prior
conduct
judicial
decisions
often
place
guard
look
guidance
especially
situation
state
stands
alone
adopting
particular
policy
concluding
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
understandably
unwilling
hold
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
clearly
established
attaching
petitioner
restraining
bar
violated
eighth
ante
far
obvious
ante
respondents
attaching
petitioner
restraining
bar
acted
deliberate
indifference
health
safety
hudson
mcmillian
petitioner
allegations
come
close
suggesting
respondents
knew
mere
act
attaching
petitioner
restraining
bar
imposed
substantial
risk
serious
harm
upon
see
farmer
brennan
instance
attaching
petitioner
restraining
bar
amounted
gratuitous
infliction
wanton
unnecessary
pain
ante
curious
petitioner
handcuffed
bar
may
chose
decline
bathroom
breaks
offered
respondents
also
affixed
petitioner
restraining
bar
legitimate
penological
purpose
encouraging
compliance
prison
rules
work
duty
moreover
application
general
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
use
restraining
bar
obvious
claims
ante
one
wonders
federal
district
courts
alabama
repeatedly
arrived
opposite
conclusion
respondents
turn
realize
courts
failed
grasp
obvious
unable
base
holding
respondents
conduct
violated
clearly
established
rights
reasonable
person
known
ante
quoting
harlow
precedents
instead
relies
upon
binding
eleventh
circuit
precedent
alabama
department
corrections
adoc
regulation
department
justice
report
informing
adoc
constitutional
infirmity
use
hitching
post
ante
address
sources
reverse
order
department
justice
report
referenced
nothing
demonstrate
clear
respondents
attaching
petitioner
restraining
bar
violated
eighth
amendment
rights
begin
concedes
indication
justice
department
recommendation
adoc
stop
using
restraining
bar
ever
communicated
respondents
prison
guards
small
town
capshaw
alabama
see
ante
event
extraordinarily
prison
guard
read
justice
department
report
federal
district
decisions
addressing
use
restraining
bar
concluded
dispute
whether
handcuffing
prisoner
restraining
bar
constituted
eighth
amendment
violation
practice
clearly
unconstitutional
alabama
department
corrections
regulation
relied
upon
fails
provide
support
holding
today
regulation
weighs
respondents
favor
expressly
authorized
prison
guards
affix
prisoners
restraining
bar
disruptive
work
squad
app
alabama
prison
guards
entitled
rely
validity
duly
promulgated
state
regulation
instructing
attach
prisoners
restraining
bar
specified
circumstances
see
wilson
layne
crediting
officer
reliance
marshals
service
policy
important
conclusion
qualified
immunity
warranted
area
state
law
best
undeveloped
recounts
petitioner
placed
restraining
bar
entering
argument
another
inmate
work
duty
may
wrestling
match
guard
arriving
work
site
june
ante
argues
respondents
must
aware
wrongful
character
conduct
precisely
abide
policy
set
forth
adoc
regulation
ante
even
taking
petitioner
allegations
true
however
loss
understand
respondents
failed
comply
regulation
respect
respondents
mcclaran
pelzer
involved
may
incident
concedes
required
activity
log
filled
date
petitioner
offered
water
bathroom
breaks
every
minutes
ante
respect
respondent
gates
complains
log
exists
petitioner
june
stay
bar
record
suggests
periodic
water
offers
contemplated
regulation
made
petitioner
however
never
alleged
gates
responsible
supervising
looking
handcuffed
post
alleged
gates
placed
also
observes
regulation
provides
inmate
allowed
join
assigned
whenever
tells
officer
ready
go
work
ante
quoting
app
explain
respondents
case
failed
observe
requirement
petitioner
never
alleged
informed
respondents
prison
guard
bar
ready
go
work
finally
binding
eleventh
circuit
precedent
relied
upon
ante
plainly
insufficient
give
respondents
fair
warning
alleged
conduct
ran
afoul
petitioner
eighth
amendment
rights
appeals
held
ort
white
prison
guard
violate
inmate
eighth
amendment
rights
denying
water
refused
work
admits
holding
provides
support
petitioner
instead
claims
reasoning
ort
gave
fair
warning
respondents
conduct
crossed
line
constitutionally
permissible
ante
ort
provides
least
much
support
respondents
petitioner
instance
ort
makes
abundantly
clear
prison
guards
authority
use
amount
force
coercive
measures
reasonably
necessary
enforce
inmate
compliance
valid
prison
rules
long
measures
undertaken
maliciously
sadistically
sure
correctly
notes
appeals
ort
suggested
might
reached
different
decision
prison
officer
denied
inmate
water
returned
prison
instead
work
squad
suggestion
dicta
guard
might
violated
prisoner
eighth
amendment
rights
denying
water
returned
work
duty
come
close
clearly
establishing
unconstitutionality
attaching
disruptive
inmate
restraining
bar
removed
work
squad
back
within
prison
walls
admittedly
case
upon
relies
gates
collier
point
nevertheless
gates
also
inadequate
establish
clearly
unlawfulness
respondents
alleged
conduct
gates
appeals
listed
handcuffing
inmates
fence
cells
long
periods
time
one
many
unacceptable
forms
physical
brutality
abuse
present
mississippi
prison
others
included
administering
milk
magnesia
form
punishment
depriving
inmates
mattresses
hygienic
materials
adequate
food
shooting
around
inmates
keep
standing
moving
see
ibid
appeals
difficulty
reaching
conclusion
forms
corporal
punishment
run
afoul
eighth
amendment
ibid
reasonable
however
read
gates
establishing
rule
forbidding
attachment
prisoners
restraining
bar
example
referring
fact
prisoners
handcuffed
fence
cells
long
periods
time
appeals
indicate
whether
considered
long
period
time
hour
hours
hours
appeals
also
provided
explanation
circumstances
surrounding
incidents
opinion
indicate
whether
handcuffed
prisoners
given
water
suitable
restroom
breaks
whether
handcuffed
bid
induce
comply
prison
rules
intervening
years
gates
time
respondents
affixed
petitioner
restraining
bar
decisions
clarifying
contours
law
area
therefore
another
interpreting
gates
noted
blanket
prohibition
use
punishment
hitching
post
gates
signal
commissioner
corrections
let
alone
ordinary
corrections
officers
mere
use
hitching
post
constitutional
violation
fountain
talley
supp
md
moreover
eighth
amendment
law
stood
still
since
gates
decided
farmer
brennan
elucidated
proper
test
measuring
whether
prison
official
state
mind
one
deliberate
indifference
holding
prison
official
found
liable
eighth
amendment
denying
inmate
humane
conditions
confinement
unless
official
knows
disregards
excessive
risk
inmate
health
safety
official
must
aware
facts
inference
drawn
substantial
risk
serious
harm
exists
must
also
draw
inference
appeals
gates
consider
subjective
element
gates
alone
clearly
established
affixing
prisoners
restraining
bar
clearly
unconstitutional
also
face
recent
federal
district
decisions
specifically
rejecting
prisoners
claims
alabama
prison
guards
violated
eighth
amendment
rights
attaching
restraining
bar
well
state
regulation
authorizing
conduct
seems
contrary
purpose
qualified
immunity
hold
one
vague
sentence
plucked
appeals
opinion
provided
clear
notice
respondents
conduct
unlawful
unfortunate
holds
officer
mcclaran
sergeant
pelzer
lieutenant
gates
entitled
qualified
immunity
clear
respondents
conduct
violated
eighth
amendment
certainly
anticipated
rule
basis
nonexistent
allegations
allegations
involving
behavior
prison
guards
foregoing
reasons
affirm
judgment
appeals
respectfully
dissent
footnotes
review
summary
judgment
appeals
viewed
facts
light
favorable
hope
nonmoving
party
case
saucier
katz
appeals
also
referenced
facts
established
austin
hopper
supp
md
appropriate
austin
suit
brought
alabama
prisoners
including
hope
district
opinion
case
discusses
hope
allegations
length
supp
summary
judgment
papers
hope
respondents
referenced
findings
austin
thus
findings
part
record
case
see
plaintiff
preliminary
response
defendants
special
report
record
defendants
response
order
app
accordingly
purposes
review
denial
summary
judgment
austin
findings
may
also
assumed
true
reference
appropriate
austin
explained
hitching
post
horizontal
bar
made
sturdy
nonflexible
material
placed
inches
ground
inmates
handcuffed
hitching
post
standing
position
remain
standing
entire
time
placed
post
inmates
shackled
hitching
post
two
hands
relatively
close
together
face
level
supp
repeated
complaint
hitching
post
however
strain
produced
inmates
muscles
forcing
remain
standing
position
arms
raised
stationary
position
long
period
time
addition
exposure
sunburn
dehydration
muscle
aches
inmates
also
placed
substantial
pain
sun
heats
handcuffs
shackle
hitching
post
heats
hitching
post
several
inmates
described
way
handcuffs
burned
chafed
skin
placement
post
appeals
noted
respondents
produced
activity
log
incident
despite
policy
required
log
maintained
supplemental
app
pet
cert
reaching
conclusion
appeals
stated
doc
claims
hope
released
hitching
post
asked
return
work
evidence
suggests
case
first
hope
never
refused
work
may
incident
victim
altercation
work
site
never
refused
job
june
incident
hope
involved
altercation
prison
guards
nothing
record
however
claiming
refused
work
encouraged
inmates
refuse
work
therefore
clear
solution
hitching
post
problem
ask
return
work
second
hope
placed
car
driven
back
limestone
cuffed
hitching
post
occasions
given
facts
improbable
hope
said
want
go
back
work
prison
guard
left
post
limestone
drive
hope
back
work
site
likely
guards
left
hope
post
work
detail
returned
teach
inmates
lesson
since
abolishing
pillory
century
ago
system
justice
consistently
moved
away
forms
punishment
similar
hitching
posts
prisons
gates
collier
cir
regard
handcuffing
inmates
fence
cells
long
periods
time
punishments
stated
difficulty
reaching
conclusion
forms
corporal
punishment
run
afoul
eighth
amendment
offend
contemporary
concepts
decency
human
dignity
precepts
civilization
profess
possess
gates
doj
report
apparently
district
case
appeals
took
judicial
notice
report
referenced
throughout
decision
awareness
risk
harm
attributable
individual
respondent
may
evaluated
part
considering
pattern
treatment
inmates
generally
received
attached
hitching
post
austin
hopper
district
cited
examples
humiliating
incidents
resulting
denial
bathroom
breaks
one
inmate
permitted
use
restroom
change
clothing
four
hours
defecated
supp
moreover
certain
corrections
officers
ignored
denied
inmates
requests
water
access
toilet
facilities
taunted
clearly
suffering
dehydration
see
suissa
fulton
county
lassiter
alabama
univ
bd
trustees
hill
dekalb
regional
youth
detention
center
object
clearly
established
immunity
standard
different
fair
warning
relates
law
made
specific
purpose
validly
applying
fact
one
civil
criminal
law
role
significance
serve
objective
effect
qualified
immunity
test
simply
adaptation
fair
warning
standard
give
officials
ultimately
governments
protection
civil
liability
consequences
individuals
traditionally
possessed
face
vague
criminal
statutes
require
something
clearer
clearly
established
call
something
beyond
fair
warning
regulation
provided
district
added
record
request
appeals
see
app
three
decisions
inmates
given
choice
working
restrained
see
whitson
gillikin
nd
app
dale
murphy
md
ashby
dees
nd
others
inmates
offered
regular
water
bathroom
breaks
see
lane
findley
cv
nd
williamson
anderson
md
hollis
folsom
md
finally
vinson
thompson
md
inmate
restrained
approximately
minutes
apparently
decisions
similar
facts
circuits
presumably
alabama
state
authorize
use
hitching
post
prison
system
footnotes
despite
consistent
use
term
hitching
post
apparatus
petitioner
handcuffed
restraining
bar
see
dept
corrections
admin
reg
reprinted
app
petitioner
also
sued
five
guards
connection
fight
occurred
affixed
restraining
bar
june
later
withdrew
claims
asked
dismissed
case
see
plaintiff
special
report
brief
response
defendants
motion
summary
judgment
nd
pp
record
doc
see
second
affidavit
larry
hope
nd
record
doc
confusion
actually
affixed
petitioner
restraining
bar
may
petitioner
believe
sergeant
pelzer
institutional
incident
report
produced
respondents
written
officer
mcclaran
indicates
officers
keith
gates
mark
dempsey
placed
petitioner
bar
see
exh
petitioner
acknowledged
fact
attached
report
second
affidavit
see
consequently
interpreting
petitioner
pleadings
light
favorable
assume
petitioner
alleged
pelzer
gates
dempsey
cuffed
bar
may
additionally
assume
officer
keith
gates
mentioned
officer
mcclaran
report
person
lieutenant
jim
gates
respondent
case
worth
noting
however
respondents
vigorously
dispute
petitioner
assertion
lieutenant
jim
gates
officer
keith
gates
one
see
brief
respondents
petitioner
yet
produce
evidence
support
somewhat
incredible
claim
see
plaintiff
special
report
brief
response
defendant
motion
summary
judgment
record
doc
remaining
claims
defendants
mcclaran
pelzer
gates
connection
may
hitching
post
incident
defendant
gates
connection
june
hitching
post
incident
second
affidavit
larry
hope
record
doc
important
note
petitioner
never
maintained
gates
placed
bar
without
shirt
rather
petitioner
first
affidavit
see
affidavit
larry
hope
record
doc
well
photographs
appended
exhibits
petitioner
second
affidavit
see
second
affidavit
larry
hope
exhs
record
doc
verified
petitioner
taken
hitching
post
june
indicate
petitioner
shirt
removed
attached
bar
effort
rehabilitate
opinion
justice
stevens
argues
specific
nature
respondents
connection
events
may
june
falls
outside
scope
questions
presented
see
ante
conducting
qualified
immunity
analysis
however
courts
merely
ask
whether
taking
plaintiff
allegations
true
plaintiff
clearly
established
rights
violated
rather
courts
must
consider
well
whether
defendant
alleged
conduct
violated
plaintiff
clearly
established
rights
instance
allegation
defendant
violated
plaintiff
clearly
established
rights
nothing
overcome
defendant
assertion
qualified
immunity
absent
allegation
defendant
responsible
defendant
conduct
similarly
absence
allegation
petitioner
respondents
way
responsible
behavior
prison
guards
may
june
conduct
guards
considered
analyzing
whether
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
cf
saucier
katz
discounting
general
principle
police
officer
use
force
violates
fourth
amendment
excessive
objective
standards
reasonableness
attempt
distinguish
away
decisions
serves
undermine
qualified
immunity
analysis
appears
suggest
affixing
prisoner
restraining
bar
clearly
unlawful
long
guards
provide
prisoner
water
regular
bathroom
breaks
prisoner
placed
restraining
bar
result
refusal
work
see
ante
previously
explained
see
supra
petitioner
offered
water
bathroom
breaks
every
minutes
may
stay
bar
never
allegation
either
respondents
mcclaran
pelzer
involved
june
incident
respondent
gates
responsible
denying
petitioner
water
bathroom
breaks
date
result
even
view
law
respondents
entitled
qualified
immunity
moreover
nowhere
explains
respondents
supposed
figure
permissible
affix
prisoners
restraining
bar
refused
work
unlawful
disruptive
work
duty
claim
distinction
clearly
established
eighth
amendment
jurisprudence
time
nothing
short
incredible
continue
believe
onditions
confinement
punishment
recognized
sense
term
unless
imposed
part
sentence
farmer
brennan
thomas
concurring
judgment
result
think
original
matter
attaching
petitioner
restraining
bar
constituted
punishment
eighth
amendment
see
ibid
nevertheless
recognize
embraced
opposite
view
eighth
amendment
regulate
prison
conditions
imposed
part
sentence
see
estelle
gamble
apply
jurisprudence
evaluating
whether
respondents
conduct
violated
clearly
established
law
note
however
remain
open
overruling
dubious
expansion
eighth
amendment
appropriate
case
see
farmer
supra
thomas
concurring
judgment