In determining whether force was used maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm, you should consider five essential factors: 1) The extent of injury; 2) the need for application of force; 3) the relationship between that need and the amount of force used; 4) any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response; and 5) the extent of the threat to the safety of staff and inmates, as reasonably perceived by the responsible officials on the basis of facts known to them.
In order to prevail on this claim, the plaintiff must prove each of the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence. First, that the defendants intentionally committed acts that violated the plaintiff's constitutional right not to be subjected to cruel and usual [sic] punishment.
Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence: | |
1. | That the Defendants intentionally committed acts that violated the Plaintiff's constitutional right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment? | |
Answer Yes or No: | Brian Breeden | Yes | ||
Rudolph Gomez | Yes | |||
Eduardo Luciano | No | |||
Note: | If you answered No to Question 1 as to each Defendant, you need not answer the remaining questions. | ||
2. | That the Defendants' acts were the proximate or legal cause of damages sustained by the Plaintiff? | |
Answer Yes or No | Yes | |||
3. | That the Plaintiff should be awarded damages to compensate for physical as well as emotional pain and mental anguish? | |
Answer Yes or No | Yes | |||
If you answered Yes, |
in what amount? | $25,000 Breeden & Gomez | ||
4. | That the Defendants acted with malice or reckless indifference to the Plaintiff's federally protected rights and that punitive damages should be assessed against the Defendants? | |
Answer Yes or No | Yes | |||
If you answered Yes, | Brian Breeden | $30,000 | ||
in what amount? | ||||
Indicate separate | Rudolph Gomez | $15,000 | ||
amounts as to each | ||||
defendant. | Eduardo Luciano | $0 | ||
SO SAY WE ALL. |
Our precedent compels us to reject [the defendant's] contention. Like every other circuit that has considered the issue, we have held that intent or motivation may not be ignored when intent or motivation is an essential element of the underlying constitutional violation. Edwards v. Wallace Community College, 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir.1995). A purpose to punish is an essential element of a pretrial punishment claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, [the defendants'] purpose must be considered in this case, just as discriminatory intent must be considered when an equal protection violation is *1321 asserted, see Ratliff v. DeKalb County, Ga., 62 F.3d 338, 341 (11th Cir.1995); Edwards, 49 F.3d at 1524, and intent or motivation must be considered when certain First Amendment claims are asserted, see, e.g., Tompkins, 26 F.3d at 607 (alleged retaliatory transfer of government employee); Losavio, 847 F.2d at 648 (alleged interference with speech); Musso, 836 F.2d at 743 (alleged content-based censorship at school board meeting). When [the defendants'] purpose to punish is considered, there is no question that their alleged conduct violated clearly established law.
Prospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison conditions shall extend *1324 no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular plaintiff or plaintiffs. The court shall not grant or approve any prospective relief unless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right. The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the relief.
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |