Hoard v. Hartman, No. 16-35738 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Excessive force under the Eighth Amendment does not require proof that an officer enjoyed or otherwise derived pleasure from his or her use of force. In this case, plaintiff filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims against the Snake River Correctional Institute's officials and corrections officers for, among other things, excessive force and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant and remanded for a new trial. The panel held that the district court's instructions that plaintiff had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his alleged abuser had or derived pleasure from extreme cruelty while beating plaintiff was plainly erroneous. Furthermore, these erroneous instructions prejudiced plaintiff.
The panel also vacated the district court's sua sponte grant of summary judgment to defendants on plaintiff's deprivation-of-property claim after determining that plaintiff, who was proceeding pro se at the time, failed to receive sufficient notice that the claim was at issue on summary judgment.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel vacated the district court’s summary judgment and judgment entered following a jury trial, and remanded for a new trial, in an action brought by an Oregon state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force and deprivation of property. Plaintiff alleged that during a cell search a prison official repeatedly slammed his head against a steel door and a concrete floor. During trial, the district court instructed the jury, in part, that to succeed on his excessive force claim, plaintiff had to prove that the prison official acted maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. The district court further instructed the jury that the term “sadistically” in this context meant “having or deriving pleasure from extreme cruelty.” The panel held that a claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment does not require proof that an officer enjoyed or otherwise derived pleasure from his or her use of force. The district court therefore plainly erred by instructing the jury that “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm” required having or deriving pleasure from extreme cruelty. The panel held that these erroneous instructions prejudiced plaintiff, and that intervention was necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.