Case: Hope v. Pelzer

2:96-cv-02968 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Filed Date: Nov. 14, 1996

Closed Date: 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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 restrainin…

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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5308738/parties/hope-v-pelzer/


Judge(s)

Birch, Stanley F. Jr. (Georgia)

Bowdre, Karon O. (Alabama)

Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)

Buttram, H. Dean Jr. (Alabama)

Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorney for Defendant
Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Brown, Mark R. (Ohio)

Judge(s)

Birch, Stanley F. Jr. (Georgia)

Bowdre, Karon O. (Alabama)

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)

Ott, John E. (Alabama)

Rehnquist, William Hubbs (District of Columbia)

Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)

Souter, David Hackett (District of Columbia)

Stevens, John Paul (District of Columbia)

Tjoflat, Gerald Bard (Florida)

Vining, Robert L. Jr. (Georgia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

01-00309

Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court of the United States

March 21, 2002

March 21, 2002

Docket

00-12150

USCA Docket (PACER)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Oct. 15, 2002

Oct. 15, 2002

Docket

2:96-cv-02968

Docket (PACER)

Hope, et al v. Pelzer, et al

May 4, 2006

May 4, 2006

Docket
47

2:96-cv-02968

Memorandum Opinion [Re: Dismissal]

March 24, 2000

March 24, 2000

Order/Opinion

2000 WL 2000

00-12150

[Order Affirming District Court]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Feb. 2, 2001

Feb. 2, 2001

Order/Opinion

240 F.3d 240

01-00309

Granting Writ of Certiorari

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 4, 2002

Jan. 4, 2002

Order/Opinion

534 U.S. 534

01-00209

Amended Grant of Writ of Certiorari

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 29, 2002

Jan. 29, 2002

Order/Opinion

534 U.S. 534

01-00309

[Opinion]

Supreme Court of the United States

June 27, 2002

June 27, 2002

Order/Opinion

536 U.S. 536

00-12150

[Order]

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Sept. 12, 2002

Sept. 12, 2002

Order/Opinion

304 F.3d 304

77

2:96-cv-02968

Amended and Substituted Complaint and Jury Demand

Larry Hope v. Mark Pelzer, Keith Gates, and and Gene McClaran

Aug. 20, 2004

Aug. 20, 2004

Complaint

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5308738/hope-v-pelzer/

Last updated March 22, 2024, 3:03 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

Nov. 14, 1996

Nov. 14, 1996

PACER
2

Affidavit

Nov. 14, 1996

Nov. 14, 1996

PACER
1

Complaint

Nov. 14, 1996

Nov. 14, 1996

PACER
2

Affidavit

Nov. 14, 1996

Nov. 14, 1996

PACER
3

Order

Nov. 21, 1996

Nov. 21, 1996

PACER
3

Order

Nov. 21, 1996

Nov. 21, 1996

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Dec. 11, 1996

Dec. 11, 1996

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Dec. 11, 1996

Dec. 11, 1996

PACER
4

Order

Dec. 31, 1996

Dec. 31, 1996

PACER
4

Order

Dec. 31, 1996

Dec. 31, 1996

PACER
5

Order

Jan. 7, 1997

Jan. 7, 1997

PACER
5

Order

Jan. 7, 1997

Jan. 7, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Jan. 9, 1997

Jan. 9, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Jan. 9, 1997

Jan. 9, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Feb. 10, 1997

Feb. 10, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Feb. 10, 1997

Feb. 10, 1997

PACER
6

Motion to Amend/Correct

Feb. 19, 1997

Feb. 19, 1997

PACER
6

Motion to Amend/Correct

Feb. 19, 1997

Feb. 19, 1997

PACER
7

Motion to Amend/Correct

Feb. 25, 1997

Feb. 25, 1997

PACER
7

Motion to Amend/Correct

Feb. 25, 1997

Feb. 25, 1997

PACER
8

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

Feb. 27, 1997

Feb. 27, 1997

PACER
8

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

Feb. 27, 1997

Feb. 27, 1997

PACER
9

Order

Feb. 28, 1997

Feb. 28, 1997

PACER
9

Order

Feb. 28, 1997

Feb. 28, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

March 10, 1997

March 10, 1997

PACER
10

Motion to Compel

March 10, 1997

March 10, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

March 10, 1997

March 10, 1997

PACER
10

Motion to Compel

March 10, 1997

March 10, 1997

PACER
11

Answer to Complaint

March 24, 1997

March 24, 1997

PACER
11

Answer to Complaint

March 24, 1997

March 24, 1997

PACER
12

Order

April 7, 1997

April 7, 1997

PACER
13

Order

April 7, 1997

April 7, 1997

PACER
14

Order

April 7, 1997

April 7, 1997

PACER
12

Order

April 7, 1997

April 7, 1997

PACER
13

Order

April 7, 1997

April 7, 1997

PACER
14

Order

April 7, 1997

April 7, 1997

PACER
15

Order

April 9, 1997

April 9, 1997

PACER
15

Order

April 9, 1997

April 9, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

April 14, 1997

April 14, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

April 14, 1997

April 14, 1997

PACER
16

Response to Motion

April 24, 1997

April 24, 1997

PACER
17

Answer to Complaint

April 24, 1997

April 24, 1997

PACER
16

Response to Motion

April 24, 1997

April 24, 1997

PACER
17

Answer to Complaint

April 24, 1997

April 24, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

May 6, 1997

May 6, 1997

PACER
18

Motion for Entry of Default

May 6, 1997

May 6, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

May 6, 1997

May 6, 1997

PACER
18

Motion for Entry of Default

May 6, 1997

May 6, 1997

PACER
19

Order

May 20, 1997

May 20, 1997

PACER
19

Order

May 20, 1997

May 20, 1997

PACER
20

Order

May 21, 1997

May 21, 1997

PACER
20

Order

May 21, 1997

May 21, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

June 11, 1997

June 11, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

June 11, 1997

June 11, 1997

PACER
21

Motion for Entry of Default

June 26, 1997

June 26, 1997

PACER
21

Motion for Entry of Default

June 26, 1997

June 26, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

July 14, 1997

July 14, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

July 14, 1997

July 14, 1997

PACER

Summons Issued

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
22

Order

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER

Summons Issued

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
22

Order

July 22, 1997

July 22, 1997

PACER
23

Summons Returned Executed

July 24, 1997

July 24, 1997

PACER
23

Summons Returned Executed

July 24, 1997

July 24, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Aug. 6, 1997

Aug. 6, 1997

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Aug. 6, 1997

Aug. 6, 1997

PACER
24

Notice (Other)

Aug. 13, 1997

Aug. 13, 1997

PACER
24

Notice (Other)

Aug. 13, 1997

Aug. 13, 1997

PACER
25

Motion for Entry of Default

Aug. 21, 1997

Aug. 21, 1997

PACER
25

Motion for Entry of Default

Aug. 21, 1997

Aug. 21, 1997

PACER
26

Answer to Complaint

Sept. 2, 1997

Sept. 2, 1997

PACER
26

Answer to Complaint

Sept. 2, 1997

Sept. 2, 1997

PACER
27

Order

Oct. 14, 1997

Oct. 14, 1997

PACER
28

Order

Oct. 14, 1997

Oct. 14, 1997

PACER
27

Order

Oct. 14, 1997

Oct. 14, 1997

PACER
28

Order

Oct. 14, 1997

Oct. 14, 1997

PACER
29

Appearance Through Counsel

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

PACER
30

Response to Motion

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

PACER
31

Description not available

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

PACER
29

Appearance Through Counsel

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

PACER
30

Response to Motion

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

PACER
31

Description not available

Oct. 17, 1997

Oct. 17, 1997

PACER

PHV Fee Paid

Oct. 22, 1997

Oct. 22, 1997

PACER

PHV Fee Paid

Oct. 22, 1997

Oct. 22, 1997

PACER
32

Affidavit

Nov. 3, 1997

Nov. 3, 1997

PACER
33

Response to Motion

Nov. 3, 1997

Nov. 3, 1997

PACER
32

Affidavit

Nov. 3, 1997

Nov. 3, 1997

PACER
33

Response to Motion

Nov. 3, 1997

Nov. 3, 1997

PACER
34

Order

Nov. 5, 1997

Nov. 5, 1997

PACER
34

Order

Nov. 5, 1997

Nov. 5, 1997

PACER

Order

April 10, 1998

April 10, 1998

PACER

Order

April 10, 1998

April 10, 1998

PACER
35

Order

Nov. 19, 1998

Nov. 19, 1998

PACER
35

Order

Nov. 19, 1998

Nov. 19, 1998

PACER
37

Response to Motion

Feb. 19, 1999

Feb. 19, 1999

PACER
37

Response to Motion

Feb. 19, 1999

Feb. 19, 1999

PACER
36

Order

Feb. 22, 1999

Feb. 22, 1999

PACER
36

Order

Feb. 22, 1999

Feb. 22, 1999

PACER
38

Brief

Nov. 26, 1999

Nov. 26, 1999

PACER
38

Brief

Nov. 26, 1999

Nov. 26, 1999

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Alabama

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

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

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

General:

Assault/abuse by staff

Disciplinary procedures

Restraints : physical

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Assault/abuse by staff (facilities)

Assault/abuse by non-staff (facilities)

Affected Sex or Gender:

Male

Type of Facility:

Government-run