Filed Date: Nov. 14, 1996
Closed Date: 2005
Clearinghouse coding complete
On November 14, 1996, a prisoner in Alabama's Limestone Correctional Facility, represented by private counsel, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiff complained that he had been subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, and to due process violations by the defendant correctional officers. According to the complaint, defendants handcuffed plaintiff to a hitching post, an outdoor restraining bar, in the sun, with little water and irregular bathroom breaks, causing him physical injury (sunburn, chafing, muscle strain and dehydration) and mental trauma and emotional distress. After the parties filed sworn affidavits and reports at the court's request, the case was dismissed on March 24, 2000, by U.S. District Judge H. Dean Buttram, who adopted the March 10, 2000, Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge John E. Ott. Judge Ott had found that the defendants had qualified immunity for their conduct. (The District Court did not address the due process claim, as the plaintiff had not signed that portion of his pleadings.)
Plaintiff appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal on qualified immunity grounds on February 2, 2001; however, reaching the constitutional question, the appellate opinion also found that the defendants' conduct did violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment to the extent that the period of restraint, without regular water and restroom breaks, exceeded the time "required to address an immediate threat or danger." Hope v. Pelzer, 240 F. 3d 975, 982 (11th Cir. 2001) (Judge Stanley F. Birch, Jr.).
On January 2, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Hope v. Pelzer, 534 U.S. 1120 (2002). The ACLU, the United States and several states filed amici curiae briefs on the merits. The Supreme Court issued its decision on June 27, 2002. In an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the prison guards' handcuffing of an already-subdued plaintiff to the hitching post subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that the state prison guards were not shielded by qualified immunity, given the existence of binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, of their state correctional department's applicable regulation, and of a prior Department of Justice report informing the corrections department of constitutional infirmity in its use of the hitching post. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002). Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented.
Subsequently, on August 20, 2004, plaintiff's counsel filed an amended complaint in the District Court , which sought (1) a declaratory judgment that the defendants' conduct violated the plaintiff's rights under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, (2) a permanent injunction to preclude future similar violations, (3) compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, and (4) payment (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988) of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and reasonable expenses. After a hearing, a defense motion for summary judgment was denied by the District Court (Judge Karon Owen Bowdre) on September 28, 2005. In her Order, Judge Bowdre ruled that the plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief had been mooted, but the damages and individual liability claims still raised disputed questions of fact.
On November 8, 2005, after the plaintiff completed his case in chief at trial, Judge Bowdre granted the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, ruling that individual liability of the three named defendants had not been proven, given that no evidence established that any defendant acted with deliberate indifference or was aware of a substantial risk of serious harm.
Summary Authors
Mike Fagan (4/8/2008)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5308738/parties/hope-v-pelzer/
Birch, Stanley F. Jr. (Georgia)
Bowdre, Karon O. (Alabama)
Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)
Buttram, H. Dean Jr. (Alabama)
Brown, Mark R. (Ohio)
Birch, Stanley F. Jr. (Georgia)
Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)
Buttram, H. Dean Jr. (Alabama)
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader (District of Columbia)
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)
O'Connor, Sandra Day (District of Columbia)
Rehnquist, William Hubbs (District of Columbia)
Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)
Souter, David Hackett (District of Columbia)
Stevens, John Paul (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5308738/hope-v-pelzer/
Last updated Jan. 3, 2026, 5:42 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 14, 1996
Closing Date: 2005
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Prisoner who was detained at Limestone Correctional Facility and was subjected to abuse by their staff, including being handcuffed to a hitching post with no water or bathroom breaks for several hours.
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Alabama Department of Corrections, State
Limestone Correctional Facility in the Northern District of Alabama (Montgomery), State
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Alabama 2:96-cv-02968
Supreme Court of the United States 01-00309
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 00-12150
Supreme Court of the United States 01-00209
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Defendant
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Affected Sex/Gender(s):
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)