Phillip Cordell v. Glen McKinney
759 F.3d 573
6th Cir.2014Background
- Inmate Phillip Cordell, handcuffed and held in a submission/escort hold, was escorted by Deputy Glen McKinney in a jail hallway on July 20, 2009; Cordell alleges McKinney shoved and slammed his head into a concrete wall, causing a forehead laceration (requiring five stitches), neck pain, and diagnosed whiplash.
- Jail video captures part of the encounter (Cordell turning his head; McKinney raising Cordell’s arms) but the critical contact with the wall occurs off-camera and is therefore ambiguous.
- Jail staff (including a nurse) observed blood on the wall and floor; Sgt. Jones took Cordell’s complaint and McKinney later received a written warning for excessive force.
- Cordell sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming Eighth Amendment excessive force; McKinney moved for summary judgment and qualified immunity; the district court granted judgment for McKinney.
- The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo, construed the record in Cordell’s favor, found genuine factual disputes about the amount and purpose of force used, and reversed summary judgment, holding McKinney not entitled to qualified immunity and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKinney’s conduct violated the Eighth Amendment (excessive force) | Cordell: a handcuffed, controlled inmate was maliciously/sladistically slammed headfirst into a wall causing serious injury; that force offends contemporary standards of decency | McKinney: used minimal, necessary force to regain control after Cordell tensed/turned toward him; video shows escort in upright position and contradicts Cordell | Reversed district court: viewing facts in Cordell’s favor, a reasonable jury could find McKinney acted maliciously and inflicted sufficiently serious pain to violate the Eighth Amendment |
| Whether McKinney is entitled to qualified immunity | Cordell: prior law clearly established that ramming a handcuffed, controlled inmate into a wall is unlawful; a reasonable officer would know it | McKinney: force was lawful and, even if excessive, the law wasn’t clearly established for these circumstances | Reversed district court: under controlling precedents a reasonable officer would have known such force was unlawful, so qualified immunity is inappropriate at summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1989) (force applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm violates the Eighth Amendment regardless of significant injury)
- Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010) (extent of injury is relevant but not dispositive for excessive-force Eighth Amendment claims)
- Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986) (factors for culpable state of mind: need for force, relationship between need and amount, threat to safety, and efforts to temper response)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007) (at summary judgment, courts may disregard a version of events blatantly contradicted by video evidence)
- Schreiber v. Moe, 596 F.3d 323 (6th Cir. 2010) (striking a neutralized, handcuffed suspect is objectively unreasonable)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (qualified immunity analysis requires consideration whether right was clearly established in the particular circumstances)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991) (objective component requires pain inflicted be sufficiently serious to offend contemporary standards of decency)