Hope v. Pelzer
- Decided
- June 27, 2002
- Docket
- 01-309
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,957 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that handcuffing inmate to hitching post, and thus causing "unnecessary exposure to the heat of the sun," violated clearly established Eighth Amendment right — Burchett v. Kiefer (2002)
- holding that handcuffing inmate to hitching post, and thus causing “unnecessary exposure to the heat of the sun,”- violated clearly established Eighth Amendment right — Burchett v. Kiefer (2002)
- recognizing that the obviousness of the harm can be used to infer subjective knowledge of it — Juana Villegas v. The Metro. Gov't of Nashville (2013)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit concluded that petitioner Larry Hope, a former prison inmate at the Limestone Prison in Alabama, was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment when prison guards twice handcuffed him to a hitching post to sanction him for disruptive conduct. Because that conclusion was not supported by earlier cases with “materially similar” facts, the court held that the respondents were entitled to qualified immunity, and therefore affirmed summary judgment in their favor. We granted cer-tiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals’ qualified immunity holding comports with our decision in United States v. Lanier, 520 U. S. 259 (1997).
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.