Ray Benoit, Jr. v. Craig Weber
596 F. App'x 264
5th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Ray Benoit, a convicted inmate, sued Deputy Jeff Bordelon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force after an incident in the Lafourche Parish Detention Center where Benoit was handcuffed and shackled and contends Bordelon choked him and put a knee in his back.
- Benoit testified he lost consciousness, spat blood the next day, had a sore throat for days, and thereafter developed persistent back pain; an inmate witness corroborated seeing a choke and blackout.
- Deputies Bordelon and Neil Ledet testified Benoit resisted, that Bordelon used a tactical jaw restraint to subdue him, and that Benoit’s post-incident seizure appeared feigned; Ledet wrote the jail incident report.
- The magistrate judge credited Benoit and the inmate witness over the officers, found excessive force and more-than-de-minimis injuries (throat injury and ongoing back pain), awarded $15,000 in compensatory damages, and dismissed claims against Ledet and the sheriff for lack of intervention and vicarious liability respectively.
- Bordelon appealed, arguing the magistrate failed to analyze all five Hudson factors (requiring de novo review), that the injuries were de minimis or unsupported, and that the damages award was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of force was excessive under Hudson (malicious vs. good-faith) | Bordelon choked Benoit while he was handcuffed/shackled; no need for force | Use was a justified, tactical jaw restraint in response to resistance and perceived threat | Magistrate’s credibility findings upheld; excessive force found (clear‑error review) |
| Standard of review for magistrate’s factual findings | Not addressed by plaintiff (Benoit) | Magistrate’s failure to discuss all five Hudson factors requires de novo review | Rejected; Hudson factors are non‑exclusive and most were considered; review is for clear error |
| Whether injuries were more than de minimis (Eighth Amendment) | Throat symptoms (spitting blood, sore throat) and long‑term back pain caused by incident | Throat injury fleeting and lacks contemporaneous medical corroboration; back attributed to degenerative changes | Magistrate reasonably found both throat and persisting back injuries more than de minimis |
| Whether $15,000 compensatory damages were excessive | Award compensates physical pain, suffering, humiliation and ongoing disability | Amount challenged as excessive | Damage award not clearly erroneous or grossly inadequate; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (excessive‑force inquiry: malicious and sadistic vs. good‑faith effort to maintain discipline)
- Baldwin v. Stalder, 137 F.3d 836 (5th Cir. 1998) (bench‑trial findings of fact on excessive force reviewed for clear error)
- United States v. McFerrin, 570 F.3d 672 (5th Cir. 2009) (findings of fact influenced by legal error are not entitled to deference)
- Gomez v. Chandler, 163 F.3d 921 (5th Cir. 1999) (more‑than‑de‑minimis physical injury required for Eighth Amendment excessive‑force claim)
- Williams v. Bramer, 180 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1999) (brief injuries from choking can satisfy more‑than‑de‑minimis injury when force was unnecessary)
- Williams v. Fab‑Con, Inc., 990 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1993) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- Sockwell v. Phelps, 20 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 1994) (compensatory damages under § 1983 will be upheld unless clearly erroneous or grossly inadequate)
- Bauer v. Norris, 713 F.2d 408 (8th Cir. 1983) (examples of upheld compensatory awards for physical restraint and pain)