U.S. v. Pullings, 83 M.J. 205

First Principles: Constitutional Matters: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

1. to establish a cruel and unusual punishment violation of Article 55, UCMJ, or the Eighth Amendment, appellant must show (1) an objectively, sufficiently serious act or omission resulting in the denial of necessities; (2) a culpable state of mind on the part of prison officials amounting to deliberate indifference to his health and safety; and (3) that he has exhausted the prisoner-grievance system and that he has petitioned for relief under Article 138, UCMJ
2. with respect to the cruel and unusual punishment test, the question of whether prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s needs depends on two factual questions: (1) what the officials knew, and (2) whether they disregarded known risks to inmate safety
3. with respect to the cruel and unusual punishment test, for a claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment to meet that test, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
4. in this case, with respect to appellant’s cruel and unusual punishment issue in connection with his non-medical needs, he failed to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to any of these needs where he did not demonstrate either that they knew of risks to inmate safely or that they disregarded known risks
5. in this case, with respect to appellant’s cruel and unusual punishment issue in connection with his medical needs, even if prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, appellant failed to show that any unmet medical needs were serious where he did not allege that he suffered, or was put at risk of suffering, serious harm; in addition, even if his unmet medical needs caused some harm, appellant failed to show that prison officials understood all his medical needs or ignored them
6. in this case, with respect to appellant’s cruel and unusual punishment issue in connection with his claim that service officials showed deliberate indifference to his health and safety because they continued to send prisoners to a civilian prison facility with knowledge of its history of deficient conditions, appellant cannot prevail; even if service officials send a prisoner to a civilian facility that they know has a history of past abuses, no violation cruel and unusual punishment violation can occur unless a prisoner in fact suffers ill treatment within the facility and files a grievance and Article 138, UCMJ, petition about it; furthermore, appellant has failed to provide sufficient information about the number and nature of past problems or the culpability of prison officials to draw specific conclusions about the facility’s history of violations or service officials’ knowledge of them

Trial Stages: Sentence and Punishment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment

1. to establish a cruel and unusual punishment violation of Article 55, UCMJ, or the Eighth Amendment, appellant must show (1) an objectively, sufficiently serious act or omission resulting in the denial of necessities; (2) a culpable state of mind on the part of prison officials amounting to deliberate indifference to his health and safety; and (3) that he has exhausted the prisoner-grievance system and that he has petitioned for relief under Article 138, UCMJ
2. with respect to the cruel and unusual punishment test, the question of whether prison officials were deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s needs depends on two factual questions: (1) what the officials knew, and (2) whether they disregarded known risks to inmate safety
3. with respect to the cruel and unusual punishment test, for a claim by a prisoner that he has not received adequate medical treatment to meet that test, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
4. in this case, with respect to appellant’s cruel and unusual punishment issue in connection with his non-medical needs, he failed to show that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to any of these needs where he did not demonstrate either that they knew of risks to inmate safely or that they disregarded known risks
5. in this case, with respect to appellant’s cruel and unusual punishment issue in connection with his medical needs, even if prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs, appellant failed to show that any unmet medical needs were serious where he did not allege that he suffered, or was put at risk of suffering, serious harm; in addition, even if his unmet medical needs caused some harm, appellant failed to show that prison officials understood all his medical needs or ignored them
6. in this case, with respect to appellant’s cruel and unusual punishment issue in connection with his claim that service officials showed deliberate indifference to his health and safety because they continued to send prisoners to a civilian prison facility with knowledge of its history of deficient conditions, appellant cannot prevail; even if service officials send a prisoner to a civilian facility that they know has a history of past abuses, no violation cruel and unusual punishment violation can occur unless a prisoner in fact suffers ill treatment within the facility and files a grievance and Article 138, UCMJ, petition about it; furthermore, appellant has failed to provide sufficient information about the number and nature of past problems or the culpability of prison officials to draw specific conclusions about the facility’s history of violations or service officials’ knowledge of them

Trial Stages: Appeals: Standards of Review, Burdens, etc.

1. with respect to how appellate courts should address claims that depend on the truth of factual assertions in post-trial affidavits rather than on findings of fact by a military judge, if the facts alleged in the affidavits allege an error that would not result in relief even if any factual dispute were resolved in appellant’s favor, the claim may be rejected on that basis