Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Hope v. Pelzer

536 U.S. 730 (2002)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 34,000+ case briefs...

Hope v. Pelzer

United States Supreme Court

536 U.S. 730 (2002)

Facts

Larry Hope (plaintiff) was a prisoner in Alabama who was punished by Mark Pelzer and other prisoner guards (the prison guards) (defendants) for misbehaving. Hope was first handcuffed to a hitching post after Hope got into an argument with another inmate. During the two-hour period, the prison guards offered Hope drinking water and a restroom break every 15 minutes, and Hope’s responses to these questions were recorded. Hope suffered pain and discomfort from having his arms chained above his shoulders for long periods of time. Subsequently, Hope was handcuffed to a hitching post for wrestling with a guard. During this seven-hour period, Hope received no water or restroom breaks, and prison guards teased Hope about his thirst. At the time the hitching-post punishment was used, Alabama was the only state that used the practice to punish prisoners, and a federal district court in Alabama had held that the practice was reasonable. However, several Eleventh Circuit cases had held that handcuffing inmates to fences or forcing inmates to maintain awkward positions for long periods of time was unconstitutional. In contrast, the Alabama Department of Corrections (ADOC) had issued a regulation permitting the practice of handcuffing inmates to a hitching post as long as water and restroom breaks were offered every 15 minutes. Lastly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had studied Alabama’s use of the hitching post and issued a report finding that the hitching-post punishment was unconstitutional. Hope sued the prison guards in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Without deciding whether the punishment violated the Eighth Amendment, a magistrate concluded that the prison guards were entitled to qualified immunity, and the district court affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit also affirmed, although that court held that the prison guards’ actions violated the Eighth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit held that qualified immunity protected the prison guards because the unconstitutionality of handcuffing an inmate to a hitching post had not been specifically addressed by prior case precedent. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)

Dissent (Thomas, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 607,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 34,000 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 607,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 34,000 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership