I'm out of town, and so I can't offer much commentary or case background (Norm, want to post something?), but this seems just bizarre. On remand in Hope v. Pelzer, the trial court dismissed the case, writing:
"Plaintiff offered no evidence to prove that any of the individual defendants acted with deliberate indifference or were aware of a substantial risk of serious harm," Bowdre wrote. "Merely showing that an Eighth Amendment violation occurred, without more, is not sufficient to impose liability on the defendants in this case."
But "showing that an Eighth Amendment violation occurred," by definition, means that the plaintiff showed that the officers were deliberately indifferent. To state an Eighth Amendment claim, the planitff must prove deliberate indifference. Again, if the plaintiffs "show[ed] that an Eighth Amendment violation occurred," then they must show nothing more.
Does anyone have a copy of this opinion? Hope v. Pelzer, No. CV-96-BE-2968-S. It seems beyond bizarre, and it's possible the quote is taken out of context. (Though, that's doubtful, since I've found Scott Simonsons' legal affairs coverage to be universally excellent.)
UPDATE: Thanks to Stephen Polin, a D.C. criminal and civil rights lawyer, I have a copy of the judge's order. You can dowloand it here: Download hope_v. Pelzer Rule 50 Order.pdf UPDATE: You can read a more detailed post here.
