Reid v. Melvin, 695 F. App'x 982

Reid, an Illinois prisoner who receives vegan meals for religious reasons, alleges guard Marc Balota struck his hand with a closed fist holding keys after being told the wrong tray was delivered.
Reid alleges Balota hit his hand 3–4 times, causing swelling and significant pain; Reid requested medical care but was told to submit sick-call requests.
Reid sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim among other claims; the district court screened and dismissed the entire action with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The district court characterized Reid’s injury as de minimis and dismissed the excessive-force claim, and assessed a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Reid appealed; Balota did not participate. The appellate court found the district court misapplied governing precedent by focusing on the extent of injury rather than the nature and amount of force used.
The appellate court vacated the dismissal, remanded for further proceedings, and ordered deletion of the strike.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint plausibly alleges Eighth Amendment excessive force	Reid: Balota used significant, unjustified force (keys in closed fist), causing swelling and severe pain	Dist. Ct.: Injury was de minimis (a few raps), so claim fails	Vacated: focus must be on force used, not minimal injury; claim survives screening
Whether minimal physical injury forecloses § 1983 excessive-force claim	Reid: Significant pain/swelling supports non-de minimis force	Dist. Ct.: Lack of major injury means no actionable claim	Rejected: Supreme Court requires inquiry into force; minimal injury alone does not defeat claim
Whether force had penological justification	Reid: No justification—he posed no threat while at cell-food port	Dist. Ct.: (implicit) force was minor/justified	Held: Allegations show no penological justification; malicious infliction of pain may be actionable
Whether strike under § 1915(g) was proper	Reid: Strike improper because claim was improperly dismissed	Dist. Ct.: Dismissal warranted for failure to state claim	Held: Strike vacated because dismissal was reversed and based on legal error

Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (extent of injury is not dispositive; inquiry focuses on the force used)
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010) (vacating dismissal that improperly emphasized injury rather than nature of force)
Hendrickson v. Cooper, 589 F.3d 887 (7th Cir. 2009) (prisoner need not show serious injury to state Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim)
Fillmore v. Page, 358 F.3d 496 (7th Cir. 2004) (pain totally without penological justification is per se malicious)
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (officials may violate Eighth Amendment by maliciously causing pain without justification)
Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981) (discussion of penological justification and standards of decency)