Skip to main content
Sixth Circuit· 1/31/2011

Williams v. Curtin

Citations

  • 631 F.3d 380
  • 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1897
  • 2011 WL 284494

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment when their “offending conduct reflects an unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain”
  • holding that temporary “coughing and shortage of oxygen” from a malicious and sadistic deployment of pepper spray rose to the level of a “sufficiently serious” injury
  • holding that prisoner stated a claim of excessive force based on allegations “that, when instructed to ‘pack up,’ he inquired, ‘What for, sir?,’ at which point an ‘assault team’ entered the cell and used a chemical agent on him”
  • holding that prisoner stated a claim of excessive force based on allegations “that, when instructed to ‘pack up,’ he inquired, ‘What for, sir?,’ at which point an ‘assault team’ entered the cell and used a chemical agent on him”
  • finding that “coughing and a shortage of oxygen” is adequately serious, and that—in any case—the “de minimus” nature of an injury is an insufficient basis for dismissal of a complaint
  • finding that inmate, who was subject to a chemical spray despite not disobeying any orders, stated an excessive force claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Kennedy, Clay, Kethledge

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Williams v. Curtin

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.