# Raymond Louis Bender v. James A. Brumley

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 24, 1993 · 1 F.3d 271

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485737

## Case

- **Full name:** Raymond Louis BENDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. BRUMLEY, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 24, 1993
- **Citations:** 1 F.3d 271; 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 21571; 1993 WL 321721
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Jones
- **Judges:** Garza, Williams, Jones
- **Cited by:** 195 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485737

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- finding "oral on-the-record objections to the jury charge" were not required to preserve objection where appellant "had earlier filed written objections to the proffered jury instructions"

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9485737. Public record. Not legal advice.