Whitley v. Albers

E914624

Whitley v. Albers is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision that set the standard for evaluating prison officials’ use of force under the Eighth Amendment, focusing on whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.

All labels observed (2)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (47)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Eighth Amendment case ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
prisoners' rights case ⓘ
appliesTo claims by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment ⓘ
areaOfLaw civil rights law ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ
prison law ⓘ
arguedDate November 12, 1985 ⓘ
causeOfAction 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim ⓘ
citation Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) ⓘ
linked to: Whitley v. Albers
clarified that the Eighth Amendment inquiry focuses on the officials' state of mind in using force ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
context prison riot or disturbance situation ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedDate March 4, 1986 ⓘ
decisionDate 1986 ⓘ
distinguishedFrom Fourth Amendment excessive force standard ⓘ
docketNumber 84-1077 ⓘ
factPattern prison disturbance and shooting of an inmate by a prison official ⓘ
followedBy Hudson v. McMillian ⓘ
holding The Eighth Amendment is violated by prison officials' use of force only when force is applied maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. ⓘ
influenced later Eighth Amendment excessive force jurisprudence ⓘ
joinedByInMajority Chief Justice Warren E. Burger ⓘ
linked to: Warren E. Burger

Justice Byron R. White ⓘ
linked to: Byron R. White

Justice Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
linked to: Harry A. Blackmun

Justice John Paul Stevens ⓘ
linked to: John Paul Stevens

Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
linked to: Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Justice Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
linked to: Thurgood Marshall

Justice William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
jurisdiction United States ⓘ
language English ⓘ
legalIssue cruel and unusual punishment standard ⓘ
use of force by prison officials ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ⓘ
page 312 ⓘ
party Albers ⓘ
Marion Whitley ⓘ
precedentFor evaluation of prison officials' use of force under the Eighth Amendment ⓘ
rejected negligence as a sufficient basis for an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim in the prison context ⓘ
reporter United States Reports ⓘ
standardAppliesWhen officials act in good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline ⓘ
officials act maliciously and sadistically to cause harm ⓘ
standardClarified good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline versus malicious and sadistic intent to cause harm ⓘ
standardEstablished malicious and sadistic standard for prison use-of-force claims under the Eighth Amendment ⓘ
volume 475 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (2)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Hudson v. McMillian → relatedCase → Whitley v. Albers ⓘ
Whitley v. Albers → citation → Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) ⓘ
linked to: Whitley v. Albers