## Facts

- John Edward Parker, a Florida state prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal court against the Florida Department of Corrections and several correctional employees.
- Parker alleged that a correctional officer pulled down Parker’s gym shorts and attempted to sexually assault him by trying to perform oral sex on him.
- Parker did not claim any physical injury from the attempted oral sex; he alleged emotional and psychological harm.
- Parker alleged that when he pushed the officer away, the officer slammed Parker’s head into a steel door.
- Parker claimed resulting harm that included a headache and emotional effects (including loss of “mental trust, dignity, and self-esteem”).
- Parker was medically examined after the incident, including for complaints of a headache and an asserted head injury.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.
- A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.
- Both sides filed objections, and the district judge reviewed the objected-to portions de novo before ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether an officer’s alleged attempted oral sex on an inmate, without alleged physical injury beyond de minimis harm, can support an Eighth Amendment sexual-abuse claim at summary judgment.
2. Whether evidence that an officer slammed an inmate’s head into a steel door creates a triable Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim under the “malicious and sadistic” standard.
3. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (PLRA) requires summary judgment, or instead limits damages, when an inmate alleges primarily mental or emotional harm but also alleges a head impact, headache, and medical evaluation.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to defendants on Parker’s Eighth Amendment claim based on the alleged attempted oral sex.
- The court denied summary judgment in part on Parker’s Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim based on the alleged head-slamming, finding a genuine dispute of material fact on whether force was used maliciously and sadistically.
- The court treated the PLRA’s physical-injury requirement as limiting recovery for mental or emotional injury absent a sufficient physical injury, rather than eliminating the excessive-force claim at the summary-judgment stage.

## Legal Principles

- Eighth Amendment claims based on sexual abuse by prison staff require proof of (1) an objectively serious deprivation and (2) a sufficiently culpable state of mind; in this circuit’s precedent, the objective component generally requires more than de minimis physical injury for the type of sexual-misconduct allegations at issue.
- For prison excessive-force claims, the core question is whether force was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm; the extent of injury is relevant but not dispositive.
- The PLRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), restricts recovery for mental or emotional injury suffered in custody without a prior showing of physical injury; it can constrain available damages even when an Eighth Amendment violation claim survives on the merits.

## Conclusion

The Northern District of Florida, after de novo review of objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, granted summary judgment on Parker’s claim that an officer attempted to perform oral sex on him because Parker alleged no physical injury from that conduct beyond emotional harm, but denied summary judgment in part on Parker’s claim that the officer slammed his head into a steel door, holding that the head-slamming allegation and supporting record created a factual dispute under the Eighth Amendment’s “malicious and sadistic” excessive-force standard and that the PLRA chiefly limited damages for purely mental or emotional injury rather than disposing of the excessive-force claim at summary judgment.


Parker v. Department of Corrections, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17247 (2011)