Nahmod Law

Different constitutional provisions have their own state of mind requirements. Even the same constitutional provision can have variable state of mind requirements depending on context. For example, in some situations the state of mind requirement for a due process violation is deliberate indifference, and in other situations it is purpose to do harm. Similarly, in some situations the state of mind requirement for an Eighth Amendment violation is deliberate indifference, and in other situations it is willful and wanton infliction of pain. On all of this and more, see generally chapter 3 in Nahmod, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Litigation: The Law of Section 1983 (2023-24 ed.)(West/Westlaw).

In these cases and others, the state of mind requirement serves an important gatekeeper function that determines whether a plaintiff’s §1983 constitutional claim can go forward. It is therefore crucial for plaintiffs to argue for the lower or less culpable state of mind, while defendants will argue for the higher or more culpable state of mind.

Here are two examples, one from the Ninth Circuit where the defendants were successful, and the other from the Minnesota Supreme Court where the plaintiff was successful.

The Ninth Circuit’s Substantive Due Process Ochoa Decision

In Ochoa v. City of Mesa, 26 F.3d 1050 (9^th Cir. 2022), the plaintiffs, who were relatives of an arrestee shot and killed by police officers during a standoff, alleged that their substantive due process rights protecting companionship and familial association were violated by the officers’ conduct.

Affirming the district court which ruled in favor of the defendants, the Ninth Circuit determined that the appropriate shocks the conscience test in this case was the purpose to do harm test—not deliberate indifference–because the officers did not have time to deliberate before they shot the decedent. This was an escalating situation involving a domestic dispute, possibly a gun, knives, erratic driving and a home invasion.

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment Welters Decision

In Welters v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, 982 N.W.2d 457, 472 (S. Ct. Minn. 2022), the plaintiff inmate sued corrections officers for violating his Eighth Amendment rights when, despite his continuing complaints, they allegedly improperly applied over-tightened handcuffs to him for over 3 ½ hours while transporting him for an endoscopy, and thereby caused him significant pain and permanent damage.

The Minnesota Supreme Court, reversing the trial court, ruled that the applicable Eighth Amendment standard here was deliberate indifference and not the malicious and sadistic standard: this case did not involve resolving a prison disturbance but rather implicated conditions of confinement and medical care. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the malicious and sadistic standard applied “to any act taken to maintain general security [because it] would swallow even the day-to-day security measures taken as part of the conditions of confinement of prison life.” The Minnesota Supreme Court then concluded that as of July 31, 2017, a reasonable corrections officer would have known that such conduct violated the Eighth Amendment, so that the defendants here violated clearly settled law and were not entitled to qualified immunity.

Judge Gildea dissented, arguing that the proper Eighth Amendment standard in this case was the malicious and sadistic one which, when applied here, meant that the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendants should be affirmed. 982 N.W.2d 457, 485.