Travis Conklin v. Hale, 680 F. App'x 120

Conklin, a prisoner, sued Corrections Officer Rockwell under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force during a confrontation.
After Conklin became agitated—shouting, spitting, demanding a grievance—officers ordered him back to his cell; he refused and struck an officer during the restraint.
Rockwell and other officers tackled Conklin; Rockwell placed Conklin in a headlock, administered two fist jabs while Conklin was flailing and attempting to kick and spit, then immediately de-escalated.
District Court held a bench trial, credited the officers’ testimony over Conklin’s, and found Rockwell’s conduct was objectively and subjectively reasonable under the Eighth Amendment.
Conklin appealed, arguing (1) the force was malicious/excessive, (2) credibility errors by the court, and (3) ineffective assistance by court-appointed counsel (including failure to call witnesses and consenting to a bench trial).
The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting Conklin’s excessive-force and trial-advocacy claims and noting Conklin waived any jury-trial claim by participating in the bench trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rockwell used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment	Conklin: Rockwell acted maliciously and sadistically to cause harm rather than to restore discipline	Rockwell: Force was used in good-faith to subdue an unruly, violent inmate and restore order	Court held force was applied in good faith and was reasonable under the Eighth Amendment
Whether District Court’s credibility findings were erroneous	Conklin: Officers gave inconsistent testimony, so court should not have credited them	Rockwell: Minor inconsistencies do not undermine credibility determinations by the trial court	Court deferred to trial court’s credibility findings and found no clear error
Whether Conklin is entitled to a new trial for ineffective assistance of court-appointed counsel	Conklin: Counsel erred by not calling witnesses, agreeing to bench trial, and failing to expose alleged perjury	Rockwell: No federal right to effective counsel in civil cases; strategic choices not grounds for retrial	Court held ineffective assistance is not a basis for retrial in civil litigation
Whether Conklin preserved a right to jury trial	Conklin: (attempted) claim that he was denied a jury trial	Rockwell: Participation in bench trial without objection waived jury right	Court held Conklin waived any jury-trial right by proceeding with a bench trial

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (Eighth Amendment excessive-force standard and deference to prison security measures)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (deference to prison policies to preserve internal order and security)
Brooks v. Kyler, 204 F.3d 102 (test for malicious or sadistic application of force)
Dardovitch v. Haltzman, 190 F.3d 125 (deferential review of trial-court credibility findings)
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 609 F.3d 143 (deference when conclusions rest on credibility)
Stenzel v. Ellis, 916 F.2d 423 (upholding force used briefly to subdue resisting inmate)
Kushner v. Winterthur Swiss Ins. Co., 620 F.2d 404 (no constitutional right to effective counsel in civil cases)
Nelson v. Boeing Co., 446 F.3d 1118 (general rule that ineffective assistance in civil cases is not grounds for retrial)
In re City of Phila. Litig., 158 F.3d 723 (bench-trial participation waives jury-trial right)