Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Hope Vs. Pelzer

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 27, 2002

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

66 entries 9 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Harlow Vs. Fitzgerald US Supreme Court · Jun 24, 1982
  2. Whitley Vs. Albers US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1986
  3. Rhodes Vs. Chapman US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1981
  4. Trop Vs. Dulles US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1958
  5. Anderson Vs. Creighton US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1987
  6. Malley Vs. Briggs US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1986
  7. Farmer Vs. Brennan US Supreme Court · Jun 06, 1994
  8. United States Vs. Lanier US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1997
  9. Hudson Vs. Mcmillian US Supreme Court · Nov 13, 1991
  10. U.S. 730 (2002) October Term, 2001 Syllabus Hope V. Pelzer
    Search
  11. are those that are 'totally without penological justification.''' Rhodes v. Chapman
    Search
  12. to the inmates' health or safety, Hudson v. M cMillian
    Search
  13. U. S. 1 , 8, a state of mind that can be inferred from the fact that the risk of harm is obvious, Farmer v. Brennan
    Search
  14. willfully and under color of law to deprive a person of constitutional rights. This Court's opinion in United States v. Lanier
    Search
  15. that their conduct was unconstitutional. In addition, binding Circuit precedent should have given them notice. Gates v. Collier
    Search
  16. forms of corporal punishment impermissible, including handcuffing inmates to fences or cells for long periods, and Ort v. White
    Search
  17. to determine whether the Court of Appeals' qualified immunity holding comports with our decision in United States v. Lanier
    Search
  18. favorable to Hope, the nonmoving party. 240 F.3d 975 , 977 (CAll 2001) (case below). We do the same. Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  19. U. S. 194 , 201 (2001). The Court of Appeals also referenced facts established in Austin v. Hopper
    Search
  20. Id., at 981. The court then concluded that the facts in the two precedents on which Hope primarily relied-Ort v. White
    Search
  21. F.2d 318 (CAll 1987), and Gates v. Collier
    Search
  22. qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  23. system of justice has consistently moved away from forms of punishment similar to hitching posts in prisons. In Gates v. Collier
    Search
  24. to the inmates' health or safety. Hudson v. McMillian
    Search
  25. We may infer the existence of this subjective state of mind from the fact that the risk of harm is obvious. Farmer v. Brennan
    Search
  26. by considering the pattern of treatment that inmates generally received when attached to the hitching post. In Austin v. Hopper
    Search
  27. Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  28. and under color of law to deprive a person of rights protected by the Constitution. In United States v. Lanier
    Search
  29. U. S. 259 (1997), we held that the defendant was entitled 9 See, e. g., Suissa v. Fulton
    Search
  30. Lassiter v. Alabama
    Search
  31. Hill v. Dekalb
    Search
  32. to the one in issue. Id., at 263 (citing United States v. Lanier
    Search
  33. the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit before 1981 are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit today. See Bonner v. Prichard
    Search
  34. Court decision finding a number of constitutional violations in the administration of Mississippi's prisons. Gates v. Collier
    Search
  35. in a case decided by the Eleventh Circuit in 1987 sent the same message to reasonable officers in that Circuit. In Ort v. White
    Search
  36. Id., at 103. The findings in Austin v. Hopper
    Search
  37. distinguishable on their own terms. 12 But regardless, they would be no match for the Circuit precedents13 in Gates v. Collier
    Search
  38. was unconstitutional, and Ort v. White
    Search
  39. In three of the decisions, the inmates were given the choice between working or being restrained. See Whitson v. Gillikin
    Search
  40. Dale v. Murphy
    Search
  41. Ashby v. Dees
    Search
  42. NE (ND Ala., Dec. 27, 1994), p. 6. In others, the inmates were offered regular water and bathroom breaks. See Lane v. Findley
    Search
  43. Williamson v. Anderson
    Search
  44. Hollis v. Folsom
    Search
  45. No. CV-94-T-0052-N (MD Ala., Nov. 4, 1994), p. 9. Finally, in Vinson v. Thompson
    Search
  46. infliction of punishment is unconstitutional, even in the prison context, see supra, at 737 (citing Whitley v. Albers
    Search
  47. Ibid. (quoting Trop v. Dulles
    Search
  48. Ante, at 739 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald
    Search
  49. then qualified immunity does not apply. Saucier v. Katz
    Search
  50. officials can still 10 Cf. Saucier v. Katz
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial