Inmate Constitutional Claims and the Scienter Requirement

23 Pages Posted: 3 Mar 2020 Last revised: 5 Mar 2020

See all articles by Ann Woolhandler

Ann Woolhandler

University of Virginia School of Law

Michael G. Collins

University of Virginia School of Law

Date Written: February 28, 2020

Abstract

Scholars have criticized requirements that inmates prove malice or deliberate indifference to establish constitutional claims against corrections officials. The Eighth Amendment currently requires that convicted prisoners show that a prison official acted “maliciously or sadistically” to establish an excessive force claim, and to show that an official acted with subjective “deliberate indifference” to make out a claim of unconstitutional prison conditions. Similar requirements can apply with respect to claims by pretrial detainees whose claims are governed by substantive due process rather than the Eighth Amendment.

Scienter critics have argued for use of an objective reasonableness standard for all inmate claims, including those brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment as well as pretrial detainees. This Essay argues that the scienter requirements are more justified than the critics claim. The scienter critics argue that the Court has based its state of mind requirements on a mistaken notion that punishment requires a purpose to chastise or deter. Intentions to chastise and deter, however, remain central to the concept of punishment, and the reference to other purposes of punishment does not suggest dispensing with a culpable state of mind requirement in inmate suits against corrections officials. Scienter requirements, moreover, may be justified apart from a notion of punishment — both by reference to the need to maintain order in prisons and to distinguish constitutional violations from ordinary torts. State of mind requirements, moreover, do not pose the impenetrable barrier to liability that the critics claim. This is particularly true in systemic conditions cases — the cases that have the most promise of improving the lives of inmates.

Keywords: Eighth Amendment, excessive force, prison conditions, Bivens actions, 42 U.S.C. 1983, scienter, federal courts, constitutional law, pre-trial detention, prisoner rights

Suggested Citation

Woolhandler, Ann and Collins, Michael G., Inmate Constitutional Claims and the Scienter Requirement (February 28, 2020). Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper No. 2020-21. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3546189

Ann Woolhandler (Contact Author)

University of Virginia School of Law ( email )

580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States

Michael G. Collins

University of Virginia School of Law ( email )

580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
United States
434-243-2385 (Phone)

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
31
Abstract Views
136
PlumX Metrics