on contemporary standards of decency. See Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9, 112 S.Ct. 995 (“When prison officials maliciously and sadistically use force to cause harm, contemporary standards of decency always are violated. This is true whether or not significant injury is evident.”) Applying this rule, the Hudson Court held that there was an Eighth Amendment violation even though the prisoner’s injuries were minor, consisting of “bruises, swelling, loosened teeth, and a cracked dental plate.” Id. at 10, 112 S.Ct. 995. The Court based its holding on the prisoner having presented evidence weighing in favor of the other Whitley factors to show that the defendant officers acted maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing the prisoner harm. See id.; see also Martinez, 323 F.3d at 1180 (<HOLDING>). Here, like the prisoners in Hudson and
holding that prisoner waived first amendment claim because he failed to brief arguments on appeal holding that the prisoner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted his administrative remedies in his complaint holding that prisoner copayment plan was not violative of the eighth amendment holding that a prisoner who suffered lacerations on his left leg and finger an abrasion on his head bruises and red welts on his back stated a claim under the eighth amendment because the prisoner provided evidence in support of the other whitley factors holding that prisoner stated a claim for relief under the eighth amendment for his exposure to secondhand smoke even though he reported no illness