Hope v. Pelzer

rdf:langString Hope v. Pelzer

rdf:langString

rdf:langString Larry Hope, Petitioner v. Mark Pelzer, et al.

rdf:langString Thomas

rdf:langString Rehnquist, Scalia

rdf:langString O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

rdf:langString U.S. Const. amend. VIII;

rdf:langString Hope v. Pelzer,

rdf:langString Larry Hope, Petitioner v. Mark Pelzer, et al.

rdf:langString Qualified immunity is not available to prison officials for civil rights lawsuits alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment for use of a hitching post.

rdf:langString Hope v. Pelzer

rdf:langString Stevens

rdf:langString Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the defense of qualified immunity, under which government actors may not be sued for actions they take in connection with their offices, did not apply to a lawsuit challenging the Alabama Department of Corrections's use of the "hitching post", a punishment whereby inmates were immobilized for long periods of time. At issue in Hope v. Pelzer was the question of whether qualified immunity applied in the case of punishment exceeding the standards of cruel and unusual punishment. The first question was whether the use of the hitching post was cruel and unusual in the twentieth century. The second question, depending on a yes answer to the first, was whether the guards were acting as agents of the state, and therefore not personally liable. The Court opined that a hitching post was generally cruel and unusual, applying 20th century standards that probably would not have applied in 1789. The second question, and the one that the Court ruled upon, was whether the guards could claim qualified immunity. The Court let Hope sue the guards in District Court. In 2005, that court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that in this particular case the named guards had meted cruel and unusual punishment.