SUPREME COURT RULES THAT THE NATURE OF THE FORCE NOT THE NATURE OF THE INJURY DETERMINES EXCESSIVE FORCE

The Supreme Court, yesterday, in Wilkins v. Gaddy reversed a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal decision upholding a District Court denial of a habeas claim against a prison guard because the injury was only de minimus. The Supreme Court ruled, citing Hudson v. McMillian that while the amount of the injury might indicate the nature of the force used, it is the latter that determines whether the force was excessive, not the amount of the injury.

In a pro per complaint James L. Wilkins alleged that he was assaulted by an officer. Willkins alledged that Gaddy punched, kicked, kneed and choked him. Furthermore he alleged that Gaddy threw him into the concere floor. As a result of Gaddy’s actions Wilkins suffered ” multiple physical injuries including a bruised heel, lower back pain, increased blood pressure, as well as migraine headaches and dizziness” and “psychological trauma and mental anguish including depression, panic attacks and nightmares of the assault.” But he did not allege that his injuries required hospitalization or treatment. Therefore the District Court and the Fourth Circuit found the injuries to be de minimus and dismissed the complaint.. In reality, Wilking receieved medical treatment for the injuries.

In any case the Supreme Court, citing Hudson, ruled that the issue is not whether the injuries are de minimus or not but rather the nature of theforce used is excessive and reversed the lower court’s denial of the claim. It remanded for further consideration.