From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jackson v. Culbertson

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 4, 1993
984 F.2d 699 (5th Cir. 1993)

Summary

holding that pretrial detainee suffered no injury, and that spraying detainee with fire extinguisher was de minimis use of force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Byers v. Navarro Cnty.

Opinion

No. 91-4897. Summary Calendar.

March 4, 1993.

Harry L. Jackson, Huntsville, TX, for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard F. Baker, Dist. Atty.'s Office, Roger N. Fry, ACDA, Thomas F. Rugg, 1st Asst., Beaumont, TX, for R.E. Culbertson, M. Trahan, G. Wiggins and K. Kaufman.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.


The district court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge dismissing plaintiff's pro se and in forma pauperis § 1983 complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We affirm, relying on the reasons stated by the magistrate and adopted by the district court as to all claims, except plaintiff's use of force claim.

Jackson, previously a prisoner confined in the Jefferson County Jail, based his excessive use of force claim on the following facts. While in prison, Jackson started a fire with a match and the core of a role of toilet paper. The fire alarm went off, prompting prison officials to take action. One official arrived with a fire extinguisher. The fire had already gone out by the time he arrived; nonetheless, the official sprayed the remaining ashes, as well as Jackson and two other inmates. Jackson testified at his Spears hearing that he did not receive any injuries.

Because our precedent at the time of the magistrate's decision required a "significant injury," see Johnson v. Morel, 876 F.2d 477, 480 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (under the Fourth Amendment); Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 59 (5th Cir. 1990) (under the Eighth Amendment); Shillingford v. Holmes, 634 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1981) (under the Due Process Clause), the magistrate found this claim to be frivolous. However, after the magistrate's decision, the Supreme Court held that a significant injury is not required for an excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillian, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992). Although, Jackson need not show a significant injury, he must have suffered at least some injury. The Court in Hudson also stated that

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment necessarily excludes from constitutional recognition de minimis uses of physical force, provided that the use of force is not of a sort "repugnant to the conscience of mankind."

Id. ___ U.S. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 1000. Apparently, Jackson was a pretrial detainee so that his claim is governed by the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment. Regardless, the standard is the same. See Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that Hudson's test for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment applies to a pretrial detainee's excessive force claim under the Due Process Clause).

Because he suffered no injury, we find that the spraying of Jackson with the fire extinguisher was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind. Cf. Olson v. Coleman, 804 F. Supp. 148, 150 (D.Kan. 1992) (finding a single blow to the head causing a contusion to be de minimis and not repugnant); Candelaria v. Coughlin, 787 F. Supp. 368, 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (allegation of single incident of guard using force to choke inmate was de minimis), aff'd, 979 F.2d 845 (2d Cir. 1992). The dismissal of Jackson's claims under § 1915(d) is therefore AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Jackson v. Culbertson

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Mar 4, 1993
984 F.2d 699 (5th Cir. 1993)

holding that pretrial detainee suffered no injury, and that spraying detainee with fire extinguisher was de minimis use of force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Byers v. Navarro Cnty.

holding that standard under Eighth Amendment and Due Process Clause is the same

Summary of this case from Byers v. Navarro Cnty.

finding no claim where plaintiff sustained no injuries

Summary of this case from Martinez v. Nueces Cnty.

concluding that where the prisoner suffered no injury, the use of physical force was de minimis and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Dillon v. Little

concluding that where the prisoner suffered no injury, the use of physical force was de minimis and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Olivarez v. Davidson

In Jackson v. Culbertson, 984 F.2d 699, 700 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam), for example, a pretrial detainee had started a fire in the jail and had been sprayed with a fire extinguisher by the guard who had come to put out the fire.

Summary of this case from Riley v. Dorton

spraying of inmate with fire extinguisher caused no injury and was therefore a de minimis use of physical force not repugnant to the conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Eason v. Holt

noting that an excessive-force claim by a pretrial detainee is governed by the Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment

Summary of this case from Greer v. Fowler

spraying inmate with a fire extinguisher after the fire was out was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind where the inmate suffered no physical injury

Summary of this case from Esparaza v. Kuykendall

spraying inmate with a fire extinguisher after the fire was out was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind where the inmate suffered no physical injury

Summary of this case from McClure v. Torres

spraying inmate with fire extinguisher found to be de minimis and not repugnant to conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Taylor v. Honea

spraying inmate with a fire extinguisher after the fire was out was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind where the inmate suffered no physical injury

Summary of this case from Caldwell v. Herrington

In Jackson v. Culbertson, 984 F.2d 699, 700 (5th Cir. 1992), the inmate was sprayed by a fire hose in his cell, but suffered no injuries; the Fifth Circuit held, citing Hudson, that the spraying was de minimis.

Summary of this case from Young v. Allen

spraying inmate with a fire extinguisher after the fire was out was a de minimis use of physical force and was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind where the inmate suffered no physical injury

Summary of this case from Bourque v. Cassidy

noting that a de minimis use of force is insufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim

Summary of this case from Porter v. Hemphill

noting that a de minimis use of force is insufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim

Summary of this case from Porter v. Hemphill

Spraying of inmate with fire extinguisher

Summary of this case from Fackler v. Dillard

Spraying of inmate with fire extinguisher a de minimis use of physical force

Summary of this case from Fackler v. Dillard

In Jackson v. Culbertson, an inmate inside his cell was sprayed with a fire extinguisher, but suffered no injuries. The Fifth Circuit stated that because Jackson suffered no injuries, the spraying was a de minimis use of force; it also was not repugnant to the conscience of mankind.

Summary of this case from Green v. TDCJ-CID

spraying inmate with fire extinguisher found to be de minimis and not repugnant to conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Muckelroy v. Garcia

spraying inmate with fire extinguisher found to be de minimis and not repugnant to conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from FRY v. DRETKE

spraying inmate with fire extinguisher found to be de minimis and not repugnant to conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Reyes v. Dretke

spraying inmate with fire extinguisher found to be de minimis and not repugnant to conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Ekpin v. Bell

spraying inmate with fire extinguisher found to be de minimis and not repugnant to conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Castillo v. Jasper

spraying inmate with fire extinguisher found to be de minimis and not repugnant to conscience of mankind

Summary of this case from Paldo v. Weston
Case details for

Jackson v. Culbertson

Case Details

Full title:HARRY L. JACKSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. R.E. CULBERTSON, SHERIFF, ET…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Mar 4, 1993

Citations

984 F.2d 699 (5th Cir. 1993)

Citing Cases

Walker v. Pigeon

Id. A de minimis use of force, however, is insufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Jackson…

Williams v. Townsend

Id. A de minimis use of force, however, is insufficient to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim. Jackson…