Third Circuit
Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 326 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding that it was clearly established that the Eighth Amendment prohibits an officer’s gratuitous use of force against a subdued inmate).
Eighth Circuit
Edwards v. Byrd, 750 F.3d 728, 732 (8th Cir. 2014) (“The plaintiffs did not resist or otherwise act aggressively. Nevertheless, the guards employed a flash-bang grenade in close quarters, kicked the compliant detainees, and shot them with bean-bag guns. These facts, if proved, could show that the guards did not apply this force in order to restore order or discipline but rather for the sole—and impermissible—purpose of inflicting unjustified harm on the detainees. At the time of the incident, it was clearly established that such conduct would violate the Eighth Amendment’s proscription of cruel and unusual punishment.”).
Haggins v. Sherburne County, CIV. 10-2554 DWF/LIB, 2012 WL 4372562, at *12 (D. Minn. Apr. 17, 2012), report and recommendation adopted as modified, CIV. 10-2554 DWF/LIB, 2012 WL 4372545 (D. Minn. Sept. 25, 2012) (“Pedersen certainly should have known that if he maliciously used force against Plaintiff for the purpose of harming him, then he would be violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”).
Williams v. Jackson, 600 F.3d 1007, 1014 (8th Cir. 2010) (“The constitution clearly protects against the ‘sadistic use of force by a prison official,’ . . . . As such, reasonable officers are on sufficient notice that they may not purposefully expose prisoners to potentially harmful radiation in the complete absence of a penological purpose.”).
Treats v. Morgan, 308 F.3d 868, 875 (8th Cir. 2002) (“It is ‘well established that a malicious and sadistic use of force by a prison official against a prisoner, done with the intent to injure and causing actual injury, is enough to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause.’ . . . At the time Treats was sprayed, the law was clearly established that correctional officers do not have a blank check to use force whenever a prisoner is being difficult.”).
Lawrence v. Bowersox, 297 F.3d 727, 733 (8th Cir. 2002) (“Orchestrating an unnecessary pepper spray shower violated clearly established rights of which a reasonable person should have known.”).
Foulk v. Charrier, 262 F.3d 687, 702 (8th Cir. 2001) (stating that “the law was well established that a malicious and sadistic use of force by a prison official against a prisoner, done with the intent to injure and causing actual injury, is enough to establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause”).
Est. of Davis by Ostenfeld v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388, 1394-95 (8th Cir. 1997) (stating that “the law was well established that striking an unresisting inmate 20 to 25 times in the head while four other officers were restraining his limbs and two other officers were standing by to assist if necessary, is a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment”).
Munz v. Michael, 28 F.3d 795, 800 (8th Cir. 1994) (“We are confident that prison officials reasonably should have understood in December 1989 that they were violating a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment rights if they beat him while he was bound hand and foot in a padded cell, even though the prisoner may have sustained no serious injury.”).