IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10068
Conference Calendar
DAVID ALAN DOUGHERTY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT LAVATO; DEPUTY PEVENHOUSE;
DEPUTY RODEN; JOHN DOE; DEPUTY
LANNING,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:97-CV-197
- - - - - - - - - -
August 18, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
David Alan Dougherty, Oklahoma prisoner # 170553, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Dougherty argues that the district court
applied the wrong legal standard in determining whether his
injuries were de minimis, because he was an “arrestee” at the
time of the incident.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-10068
-2-
Dougherty, who had been in jail for more than three months
before the incident allegedly occurred, was no longer an
“arrestee.” Brothers v. Klevenhagen, 28 F.3d 452, 455-56 (5th
Cir. 1994). The district court therefore did not err in applying
the excessive force standard established in Hudson v. McMillian,
503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992). Jackson v. Culbertson, 984 F.2d 699, 700
(5th Cir. 1993) (Hudson’s test for excessive force under the
Eighth Amendment applies to pretrial detainee’s excessive force
claim under the Due Process Clause).
Dougherty also argues that the district court did not
address his claim for psychological injuries. Dougherty is
mistaken. The district court specifically held that under 42
U.S.C. § 1997e(e) and Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th
Cir. 1997), Dougherty’s bruise and two small cuts did not amount
to a “physical injury” so as to support a claim for mental or
emotional suffering under § 1997e(e).
AFFIRMED.