Whether a prison official is entitled to qualified immunity for an unprovoked assault on a prisoner even when not every Hudson factor favors the plaintiff

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Respondent is a prison guard who attacked an asthmatic prisoner in the face with a can of mace “for no reason at all.” The Fifth Circuit held that Respondent’s unprovoked assault violated the Eighth Amendment but also that he was entitled to qualified immunity. This Court has held, and reiterated via summary reversal, that it violates the Eighth Amendment to use force against prisoners maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of causing harm. 1. Isa prison official entitled to qualified immunity if he gratuitously assaults a prisoner but not every Hudson factor favors the plaintiff, as the Fifth Circuit held here, or can the plaintiff nonetheless defeat qualified immunity, as the Fourth, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held? The Fifth Circuit held that the unconstitutionality of Respondent’s unprovoked assault was not clearly established despite circuit precedent holding that unprovoked attacks with a fist or taser violate the Eighth Amendment. 2. Isa prison official who assaults a prisoner without justification entitled to qualified immunity if past precedent involved different mechanisms of force, as the Fifth Circuit implicitly held here, or can precedent concerning unprovoked assaults by one weapon clearly establish the unconstitutionality of unprovoked assaults by other weapons, as the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held?