Johnson v. Glick
481 F.2d 1028 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unprovoked and unjustified attack by a state corrections officer on a pretrial detainee constitutes a violation of the detainee's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights, giving rise to a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, a supervisor is not liable under respondeat superior unless they have personal responsibility for the incident.
Facts:
- Australia Johnson was a pretrial detainee at the Manhattan House of Detention for Men.
- While Johnson was being checked back into the facility, Officer Fuller reprimanded him and other men.
- Johnson attempted to explain that they were merely following the instructions of another officer.
- In response, Officer Fuller rushed into the holding cell, grabbed Johnson by the collar, and struck him twice on the head while threatening him.
- Fuller then harassed Johnson by detaining him in a holding cell for two hours before returning him to his cell.
- When Johnson later requested medical attention for his head pain, Fuller, who was assigned to escort him, delayed him for another two hours before allowing him to see the jail doctor.
- Johnson continued to suffer from severe head pains after the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Australia Johnson (plaintiff) filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Warden Glick and Officer Fuller (defendants) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
- Johnson (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an unprovoked physical attack by a state corrections officer on a pretrial detainee violate the detainee's constitutional rights and thus state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Friendly, J.
Yes. An unprovoked physical attack by a state corrections officer on a pretrial detainee can violate the detainee's constitutional rights, stating a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reasoned that while the Eighth Amendment's 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause may not apply to pretrial detainees, the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause provides protection. Citing Rochin v. California, the court held that conduct by law enforcement that 'shocks the conscience' deprives a person of liberty without due process. An isolated, spontaneous, and unjustified attack by a guard can meet this standard. However, the court affirmed the dismissal against Warden Glick, holding that § 1983 does not impose respondeat superior liability; a supervisor must have some personal responsibility for the constitutional deprivation.
Dissenting - Moore, J.
No. A single, isolated incident of a guard using force, even if unnecessarily aggressive, does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. The dissent argued that the majority's holding sets the bar too low for what constitutes a constitutional claim. It distinguished this case, involving a 'single, spontaneous incident,' from cases involving a continuous and systematic pattern of brutality that 'shocks the conscience.' Judge Moore warned that this decision would overburden federal courts with prisoner lawsuits and lead to excessive federal supervision of state correctional facilities.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the legal framework for excessive force claims under § 1983 within the Second Circuit, particularly for pretrial detainees. It clarified that such claims are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process 'shocks the conscience' standard, rather than the Eighth Amendment. The multi-factor test articulated by Judge Friendly provided a durable and influential standard for lower courts to distinguish between common law torts and constitutional violations. The decision also solidified the circuit's rejection of respondeat superior liability for supervisors in § 1983 actions, requiring plaintiffs to show personal involvement to hold higher-ups accountable.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Glick