Lloyd B. Smith v. Raymond M. Aldingers, 999 F.2d 109 (5th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Lloyd B. Smith v. Raymond M. Aldingers, 999 F.2d 109 (5th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Thomas v. Bryant (ca11, 2010-08-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas v. Bryant
11th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738 , 122 S.Ct. 2508, 2514-15 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002) (highlighting “taunting” and “humiliation” as circumstances which contributed to finding that handcuffing petitioner to a hitching post after “[a]ny safety concerns had long since abated ... violated the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment, which is nothing less than the dignity of man”) (internal quotation and citation omitted); Smith v. Aldingers, 999 F.2d 109, 109 (5th Cir.1993) (reversing dismissal of Eighth Amendment claim because district court failed to consider whether purely …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Citizen Action Fund D/B/A Louisiana Citizen Action v. City of Morgan City
5th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
The Fifth Circuit, aware that not all injuries are physical, has yet tó rule on “whether, absent physical contact, purely emotional injuries are cognizable in this Circuit as violative of the Eighth Amendment.” Smith v. Aldingers, 999 F.2d 109, 110 (5th Cir.1993) (per curiam). 6 ' Despite these vicissitudes in other areas of constitutional law, the rights protected by the First Amendment are different.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Citizen Action Fund d/b/a Louisiana Citizen Action v. City of Morgan City
unknown court · confidence medium
The Fifth Circuit, aware that not all injuries are physical, has yet to rule on “whether, absent physical contact, purely emotional injuries are cognizable in this Circuit as violative of the Eighth Amendment.” Smith v. Aldingers, 999 F.2d 109, 110 (5th Cir. 1993) (per curiam).6 Despite these vicissitudes in other areas of constitutional 6 Under the Fourteenth Amendment, this circuit has recognized a substantive due process right and a § 1983 remedy for emotional harms even in the absence of physical injuries.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) DON KELLY GRAVES, JR v. JOHN DOE, Lt., et al
unknown court · confidence medium
Although “it is an open question in this circuit whether the Eight Amendment protects individuals against psychological injury,” Lawson, at 2; Smith v. Aldingers, 999 F.2d 109, 110 (5th Cir. 1993) (remanding for consideration of whether, in the absence of any physical contact or injury, psychological harm resulting from an assault at knifepoint can violate the Eight Amendment), de minimis psychological injury is not sufficient to state a claim under § 1983.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lloyd B. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Raymond M. ALDINGERS, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
93-8081.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 27, 1993.
999 F.2d 109
Lloyd B. Smith, pro se.
Wiener, Garza, Little.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff-Appellant Lloyd B. Smith appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), and that court’s revocation of his in forma pauperis status. We have granted Smith in forma pauperis status for purpose of this appeal and review the district court’s determination that his claim was frivolous. When we do so we find that the district court incorrectly interpreted Smith’s claim as one attempting to litigate a violation of another person’s constitutional rights, and therefore we vacate the dismissal and remand for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

I

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Smith, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 complaint alleging that prison officials inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on him in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The claim arose from an incident in the facility’s kitchen involving Smith, another inmate (Richardson), and Defendant-Appellee Aldingers, a prison guard. According to Smith, Aldingers asked the two inmates to bring him an empty trash can. The two men obliged, walking over to a trash can which they found to be filled with pitchers. As the two inmates were removing the pitchers from the trash can for Aldingers, he approached them with a kitchen vegetable[*110] knife in hand, told Richardson to hold out his hand, then ran the blade across Richardson’s hand, drawing blood. According to Smith, Aldingers then turned to Smith and asked “you want some of this too?” Smith alleges that he was frightened by this question (which he took to be a threat) and as a result has had to seek psychiatric counseling.

The district court reviewed Smith’s claim on the same day that it was filed and concluded that Smith alleged no personal deprivation of his constitutional rights. The district court interpreted Smith’s complaint as being urged on behalf of Richardson, the victim of the actual battery, rather than a complaint by Smith in his own right. The court reasoned that, as Smith alleged only that he “suffered [e]motional distress as a result of observing the violent event,” he could not recover and his complaint was therefore frivolous. Accordingly, the court revoked Smith’s in forma pauperis status and dismissed his claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

In a motion filed three days after the dismissal (but before service on any defendant) Smith requested leave to amend his complaint to add the warden as a defendant. The court denied the motion as the complaint had been dismissed. Smith timely appealed.

II

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) allows a court to dismiss sua sponte a complaint filed informa pauperis if the complaint is frivolous. A complaint is “ ‘frivolous whe[n] it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.’” [1] We review a § 1915(d) dismissal for abuse of discretion. [2]

B. Eighth Amendment Violation

The district court clearly erred when it concluded that Smith failed to allege his own constitutional violation. His complaint expressly alleges that the guard’s threat at knifepoint, directed to Smith, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, not Richardson’s. As Smith admittedly suffered no physical contact or physical injuries, the legal question his case presents is whether the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment covers purely psychological injury. As the district court failed totally to consider this claim, we are bound to find an abuse of discretion in the court’s dismissal of the claim as frivolous. Consequently, we must remand for consideration of this claim.

When, on remand, the district court considers Smith’s claim, and the res nova issue it presents in this Circuit, it should do so in light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hudson v. McMillian [3] (including Justice Black-mun’s concurrence which addresses the issue of psychological harm), as well as that ease’s progeny in other circuits. [4] We express, however, no opinion as to the merits of Smith’s claim or the extent to which he might or might not have pleaded a claim on which recovery can be had, i.e., whether, absent physical contact, purely emotional injuries are cognizable in this Circuit as violative of the Eighth Amendment.

The district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and its revocation of Smith in forma pauperis status are VACATED and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

1

. Denton v. Hernandez, — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992) (quoting Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989)).

3

. - U.S.-, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992).

4

. E.g., Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375 (4th Cir.1993) (if pain results in a serious emotional injury there is a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983); Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir.1993) (psychological harm from cross-gender clothed body search a viable Eighth Amendment claim under § 1983); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518 (10th Cir.1992) (death threats accompanied with brandishment of weapon creates a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim).