and depression are examples of Mr. Comer’s compulsions. (Id. at 88-92.) He concludes Ms diagnosis of SHU syndrome with the assessment that “[Mr. Comer] has his own idiosyncratic ways of coping, which accentuates certain symptoms.” (Id. at 92.) The Court finds it undisputed that Mr. Comer was subjected to some physical brutality and abuse while incarcerated that no human being should be made to endure for any length of time. The Court has no difficulty concluding that this abuse would shock even a person with hardened sensibilities; and that even a cold-eyed critic of any disapproval of prison administration would agree that these forms of corporal punishment run afoul of the Eighth Amendment. See Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 2245, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002)(<HOLDING>); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100, 78 S.Ct.
holding that the fines imposed by the challenged city ordinances are not excessive even if the excessive fines clause is applicable holding the eighth amendment succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions it provides excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted  holding that excessive fines clause of eighth amendment does not apply to punitive damage awards between private parties recognizing culpability as important criteria for eighth amendment excessive fines claim holding that forfeitures may violate the eighth amendment excessive fines clause