That component is contextual and responsive to 'contemporary standards of decency.' Estelle v. 2321, 2326, 115 L.Ed.2d 271, the 'objective component' of Eighth Amendment analysis: whether the alleged wrongdoing is objectively 'harmful enough' to establish a constitutional violation, id., at -, -, 111 S.Ct., at 2326, 2329. There is no merit to respondents' assertion that a significant injury requirement is mandated by what this Court termed, in Wilson v. (b) Since, under the Whitley approach, the extent of injury suffered by an inmate is one of the factors to be considered in determining whether the use of force is wanton and unnecessary, 475 U.S., at 321, 106 S.Ct., at 1085, the absence of serious injury is relevant to, but does not end, the Eighth Amendment inquiry. Extending Whitley § application of the 'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' standard to all allegations of force, whether the prison disturbance is a riot or a lesser disruption, works no innovation. 1078, 1084-1085, 89 L.Ed.2d 251: whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. (a) Whenever prison officials stand accused of using excessive physical force constituting 'the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' violative of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, the core judicial inquiry is that set out in Whitley v. Held: The use of excessive physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the inmate does not suffer serious injury.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, inter alia, that inmates alleging use of excessive force in violation of the Amendment must prove 'significant injury' and that Hudson could not prevail because his injuries were 'minor' and required no medical attention. § 1983 found that the officers used force when there was no need to do so and that Mezo expressly condoned their actions, ruled that respondents had violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, and awarded Hudson damages.

Petitioner Hudson, a Louisiana prison inmate, testified that minor bruises, facial swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate he had suffered resulted from a beating by respondent prison guards McMillian and Woods while he was handcuffed and shackled following an argument with McMillian, and that respondent Mezo, a supervisor on duty, watched the beating but merely told the officers 'not to have too much fun.' The Magistrate trying Hudson's District Court suit under 42 U.S.C.

Jack quotes rules unessary