9.29 Particular Rights–Fourteenth Amendment–Pretrial Detainee's Claim of Excessive Force

Claims of excessive force asserted by pretrial detainees, while governed by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, are likewise analyzed under an objective reasonableness standard. See Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 395 (holding that excessive force claims asserted by pretrial detainees are governed under an objective reasonableness standard which should account for the government’s need to maintain order). “The following considerations may bear on the reasonableness (or unreasonableness) of the force used: ‘the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff’s injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.’” Id. at 397; accord Bell v. Williams,108 F.4th 809, 819 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Kingsley factors bearing on reasonableness of force used.). 

In Hyde v. City of Willcox, 23 F.4th 863 (9th Cir. 2022), the Ninth Circuit held that the use of force was constitutionally excessive when officers continued to use force after a pretrial detainee had been restrained and was not resisting, at least where the officers had sufficient time to realize that the detainee could no longer resist and did not pose a threat. Id. at 871. “The most important factor is whether the suspect posed an immediate threat.” Id. at 870 (citing Mattos v. Agarano, 661 F.3d 433, 441 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). “This analysis is not static, and the reasonableness of force may change as the circumstances evolve.” Hyde, 23 F.4that 870 (citing Jones v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 873 F.3d 1123, 1130 (9th Cir. 2017)). Courts review these claims “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” and take into account the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Bell, 108 F.4th at 819 (quoting Kingley, 576 U.S. at 397). 

The Ninth Circuit has established the rule that failing to give a jury deference instruction based on the general principles outlined in Bell was an error. Norwood, 591 F.3d at 1066-67. In subsequent cases, the Ninth Circuit refined this rule as applying only where both of the conditions in Bell were present: first, the prison officials were adopting and executing “policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security,” Shorter v. Baca, 895 F.3d 1176, 1183 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Bell, 441 U.S. at 547), and second, the record did not contain “substantial evidence showing [that the prison’s] policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.” Id. (quoting Florence, 566 U.S. at 323); see also Fierro v. Smith, 39 F.4th 640, 648 (9th Cir. 2022) (restating the rule that “two conditions” inform whether the deference instruction should be given when prisoners assert Eighth Amendment claims challenging their treatment in prison, namely “whether the treatment the prisoner challenges (1) was provided pursuant to a security-based policy or practice, and, if so, (2) was a necessary, justified, and non-exaggerated response to security needs.”). 

The Ninth Circuit has explained the application of the Norwood rule in different scenarios. The plaintiff bears the burden of producing “substantial evidence” in the record that the conditions are not met. Shorter, 985 F.3d at 1183. If the plaintiff has failed to carry this burden, or if the parties do not dispute that both conditions are met, the trial court must give a jury the deference instruction. Fierro, 39 F.4th at 648; Norwood, 591 F.3d at 1067. Where the parties do not dispute that either or both conditions are not met, then the trial court may not give the jury instruction. Fierro, 39 F.4th at 648. 

In cases involving the denial of medical care to prisoners, which highlight Bell’s first condition (whether the policy or procedure addressed the need for prison security), the deference instruction should not be given “unless a party’s presentation of the case draws a plausible connection between a security-based policy or practice and the challenged medical care decision.” Chess v. Dovey, 790 F.3d 961, 972 (9th Cir. 2015); see also Shorter, 895 F.3d at 1184 (holding that “the [jury deference] instruction may be given only when there is evidence that the treatment to which the plaintiff objects was provided pursuant to a security-based policy”); Coston v. Nangalama, 13 F.4th 729, 734 (9th Cir. 2021) (holding, in a medical care case, that the deference instruction should not have been given because, among other things, defendants “did not draw a plausible connection between a security-based policy or practice and the challenged decision to terminate [defendant’s] morphine prescription without tapering”). 

In a case highlighting Bell’s second condition (whether there was substantial evidence that prison officials had exaggerated their response), a deference instruction was not appropriate when the record contained substantial evidence that the jail’s search practice “was an unnecessary, unjustified, and exaggerated response to jail officials’ need for prison security.” Shorter, 895 F.3d at 1184. 

Finally, if the plaintiff offered both substantial evidence that the prison official’s action “was not provided pursuant to a security-based policy or practice,” and the policy at issue was “an unnecessary, unjustified, or exaggerated response,” but in response the prison adduced substantial evidence that the prison official’s “actions were (1) taken because of a security-based policy or practice and (2) necessary, justified, and not exaggerated,” Coston, 13 F.4th at 735, then “it might be appropriate to instruct the jury that ‘whether to give deference to prison officials [is] left to the jury to decide.’” Fierro, 39 F.4th at 648-49 (citing Coston, 13 F.4th at 735). 

            The Fourth Amendment may also be applicable. In Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10 (1989), the Supreme Court observed that it was an open question “whether the Fourth Amendment continues to provide individuals with protection against deliberate use of excessive physical force beyond the point at which arrest ends and pretrial detention begins.” But with regard to pre-arraignment custody, the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment provides protection against the use of excessive force. Pierce v. Multnomah County, 76 F.3d 1032, 1043 (9th Cir. 1996) (“We hold, therefore, that the Fourth Amendment sets the applicable constitutional limitations on the treatment of an arrestee detained without a warrant up until the time such arrestee is released or found to be legally in custody based upon probable cause for arrest.”).