holding that allegations of mere verbal abuse do not present an actionable Section 1983 claim
How later courts described this case
- holding that allegations of mere verbal abuse do not present an actionable Section 1983 claim
- explaining that pretrial detainee’s allegations of verbal abuse and threats by custodial officials fail to state claims under Section 1983
- stating that allegations of verbal abuse as well as threatening language and gestures on the part of a correctional officer do not rise to the level of a constitutional violation
- stating that allegations of verbal abuse do not present actionable claims under Section 1983
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Judge Williams’s opinion is persuasive and I readily concur in all but one aspect of its reasoning, with which I must cordially disagree. I dissent only from that portion of his opinion which remands Bender’s case for a new trial on whether the police officers used excessive force under federal constitu *280 tional standards. Although the district court heroically attempted to apply then-extant law on the constitutional standard, for excessive force against pretrial detainees, I agree that in light of Hudson and Valencia, supra, his instructions were wrong. Unlike my colleagues, I would hold this a harmless error. The court carefully instructed the jury that Louisiana law does not require a finding of significant injury as a predicate to state tort law liability of the officers, and the jury found against Bender. I do not agree that simply because the same instruction will now be given as to federal standards of recovery, a new jury could or should reach a different factual conclusion. The officers, I would contend, have been effectively exonerated by the jury’s refusal to find that — even without a significant injury requirement — Bender was the victim of excessive force. I therefore dissent from this portion of the panel opinion.