Whitley v. Albers
1986 U.S. LEXIS 28, 106 S. Ct. 1078, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1986)
Rule of Law:
When prison officials use force to quell a disturbance that poses significant risks to the safety of inmates and staff, the Eighth Amendment is violated only if the force was applied maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm, rather than in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline.
Facts:
- A disturbance began at the Oregon State Penitentiary after intoxicated inmates were being moved, agitating other inmates in cellblock 'A'.
- During the disturbance, inmate Richard Klenk assaulted a guard, and another guard, Officer Fitts, was taken hostage.
- Prison Security Manager Hard Whitley entered the cellblock to negotiate with Klenk, who was armed with a homemade knife and threatened to kill the hostage.
- Inmate Gerald Albers, concerned for elderly prisoners on a lower tier, left his cell and asked Whitley for a key to move them to safety.
- Whitley and his superiors determined that forceful intervention was necessary and authorized an assault squad to rescue the hostage.
- Whitley ordered Officer Kennicott to fire a warning shot upon entering the cellblock and then to shoot low at any inmate running up the stairs toward the hostage's cell.
- After the assault team entered and a warning shot was fired, Albers began running up the stairs to return to his own cell.
- Officer Kennicott then fired a third shot, which struck Albers in the left knee, causing severe injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Albers sued Security Manager Hard Whitley and other prison officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
- Albers alleged violations of his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- At the conclusion of the trial, the District Court judge granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendant prison officials.
- Albers, as the appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's directed verdict on the Eighth Amendment claim and remanded the case for a new trial.
- Whitley and the other officials, as petitioners, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 the shooting of a prisoner by guards during an attempt to quell a prison riot violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment when the action was taken as part of a good-faith effort to restore discipline and security, rather than maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No, the shooting does not violate the Eighth Amendment because the actions were part of a good-faith effort to restore order in a dangerous situation. The appropriate standard for analyzing an Eighth Amendment claim arising from a prison riot is not 'deliberate indifference,' but 'whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.' In this context, prison administrators are owed wide-ranging deference due to the volatile and dangerous nature of prison disturbances. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Albers, shows that officials faced a volatile situation with a hostage's life at risk. The decision to use deadly force and the order to shoot inmates on the stairs, while unfortunate in its outcome for Albers, was part of a plausible plan to restore security and does not support an inference of wantonness or malicious intent. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment affords no greater protection than the Eighth Amendment in this specific context.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes, a jury could have found that the shooting violated the Eighth Amendment, and the directed verdict was improper. The majority created an unjustifiably high legal standard—'maliciously and sadistically'—which is a departure from the established 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' standard. Furthermore, the question of whether a disturbance posed a 'significant risk' is a factual dispute that should be resolved by a jury, not by a judge as a prerequisite for applying this heightened standard. The majority failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Albers, ignoring testimony that the disturbance had subsided and the hostage was not in immediate danger. Given the evidence that the situation was calm and deadly force was used without adequate warning on an inmate not involved in the riot, a jury could have reasonably concluded that the force was 'unnecessary and wanton.'
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significantly high bar for inmates bringing Eighth Amendment excessive force claims that arise from prison security operations. By distinguishing these situations from other prison condition claims (like medical care), the Court replaced the 'deliberate indifference' standard with the much more stringent 'maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm' test. This ruling grants substantial deference to the judgment of prison officials during emergencies, making it very difficult for an inmate to succeed in such a lawsuit unless they can prove a culpable state of mind bordering on outright malevolence, rather than just recklessness or an unreasonable error in judgment.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Whitley v. Albers (1986)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"