Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Prince McCoy, Sr. v. Tajudeen Alamu

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 18-40856 · judgment February 11, 2020

GVR'd · February 22, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

Respondent is a prison guard who attacked an asthmatic prisoner in the face with a can of mace “for no reason at all.” The Fifth Circuit held that Respondent’s unprovoked assault violated the Eighth Amendment but also that he was entitled to qualified immunity. This Court has held, and reiterated via summary reversal, that it violates the Eighth Amendment to use force against prisoners maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm.

  1. Is a prison official entitled to qualified immunity if he gratuitously assaults a prisoner but not every Hudson factor favors the plaintiff, as the Fifth Circuit held here, or can the plaintiff nonetheless defeat qualified immunity, as the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held? The Fifth Circuit held that the unconstitutionality of Respondent’s unprovoked assault was not clearly established despite circuit precedent holding that unprovoked attacks with a fist or taser violate the Eighth Amendment.

  2. Is a prison official who assaults a prisoner without justification entitled to qualified immunity if past precedent involved different mechanisms of force, as the Fifth Circuit implicitly held here, or can precedent concerning unprovoked assaults by one weapon clearly establish the unconstitutionality of unprovoked assaults by other weapons, as the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Samuel David Kinder Weiss
Rights Behind Bars

For respondent
Lanora Christine Pettit
Office of the Texas Attorney General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 4 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Mar 26 2021
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  2. Feb 22 2021
    Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U. S. ___ (2020) (per curiam).
  3. Feb 12 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
  4. Jan 19 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
  5. Dec 30 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.
  6. Dec 29 2020
    Reply of petitioner Prince McCoy filed. (Distributed)
  7. Dec 07 2020
    Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until December 30, 2020 granted.
  8. Dec 04 2020
    Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from December 9, 2020 to December 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. Nov 25 2020
    Brief of respondent Tajudeen Alamu in opposition filed.
  10. Oct 13 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 25, 2020.
  11. Oct 09 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 26, 2020 to November 25, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  12. Sep 11 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 26, 2020.
  13. Sep 10 2020
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 25, 2020 to October 26, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
  14. Aug 26 2020
    Response Requested. (Due September 25, 2020)
  15. Aug 12 2020
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
  16. Aug 06 2020
    Waiver of right of respondent Tajudeen Alamu to respond filed.
  17. Jul 10 2020
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 17, 2020)