11th Cir. Pattern Jury Instr. (Civil) 5.6

Convicted Prisoner Alleging Excessive Force

In this case, [name of plaintiff] claims that [name of defendant], while acting

under color of law, intentionally violated [name of plaintiff]’s Eighth Amendment

right as a prisoner to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

The Constitution guarantees that every person who is convicted of a crime

or a criminal offense has the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual

punishment. This includes, of course, the right not to be assaulted or beaten

without legal justification while incarcerated.

To succeed on this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove each of the

following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:

First: That [name of defendant] intentionally [describe the

alleged conduct];

Second: That the force used against [name of plaintiff] by [name of

defendant] was excessive;

Third: That [name of defendant]’s conduct caused

[name of plaintiff]’s injuries; and

Fourth: That [name of defendant] acted under color of law. [The

parties have agreed that [name of defendant] acted under color of law, so you

should accept that as a proven fact.]

2

You must decide whether any force used in this case was excessive based

on whether the force, if any, was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or

restore discipline, or instead whether it was applied maliciously or sadistically

to cause harm. In making that decision you should consider the amount of

force used in relationship to the need presented; the motive of [name of

defendant]; the extent of the injury inflicted; and any effort made to temper the

severity of the force used. Of course, officers may not maliciously or

sadistically use force to cause harm regardless of the significance of the injury

to the prisoner. But not every push or shove—even if it later seems

unnecessary—is a constitutional violation. Also, an officer always has the right

to use the reasonable force that is necessary under the circumstances to maintain

order and ensure compliance with jail or prison regulations.

For the third element, [name of defendant]’s conduct caused [name of

plaintiff]’s injuries if [name of plaintiff] would not have been injured without

[name of defendant]’s conduct, and the injuries were a reasonably foreseeable

consequence of [name of defendant]’s conduct.

[For the fourth element, you must decide whether [name of defendant] acted

under color of law. A government official acts “under color” of law when

[he/she] acts within the limits of lawful authority. [He/She] also acts under color of

law when [he/she] claims to be performing an official duty but [his/her] acts are

3

outside the limits of lawful authority and abusive in manner, or [he/she] acts in a

way that misuses [his/her] power and is able to do so only because [he/she] is an

official.]

If you find [name of plaintiff] has proved each of the facts [he/she] must

prove, you must find for [name of plaintiff] and consider the issue of damages. If

you find that [name of plaintiff] has not proved each of these facts, then you must

find for [name of defendant].

NOTE: Model Jury Interrogatory Forms may be found in the

appendices after the last civil rights jury instruction (Pattern Instruction 5.13) for

use in actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Three types of Model Jury

Interrogatory Forms are provided: (A) a simplified Interrogatory Form for use

in most civil right actions; (B) an Interrogatory Form for use in actions that do

not require application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and (C) an

Interrogatory Form for use in actions that do require application of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act.