Blackmon v. Sutton, 734 F.3d 1237

In 1997 eleven-year-old Brandon Blackmon (4'11", 96 lbs) was detained at a Sedgwick County juvenile facility; staff used a Pro-Straint restraining chair with wrist, chest, waist, and ankle restraints repeatedly.
Blackmon attempted suicide, repeatedly harmed himself, and staff sometimes used the chair to prevent self-harm; plaintiff alleges staff also used the chair and other measures as punishment.
Blackmon sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment violations: unconstitutional punishment/excessive force (Bell), denial of adequate mental-health care (Estelle/deliberate indifference), and failure to transfer him to a shelter.
At summary judgment the district court denied qualified immunity to most defendants, finding disputed facts supporting Bell and Estelle claims; defendants appealed interlocutorily, accepting plaintiff’s factual view for purposes of the appeal.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of qualified immunity for claims alleging punishment via the restraint chair, sitting on the child’s chest, and denial/delay of mental-health care; it reversed as to the standalone failure-to-transfer claim against the director.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of Pro‑Strait chair as punishment/excessive force	Blackmon: chair was sometimes used to punish, not just for safety	Defendants: use was for legitimate penological purposes (prevent self-harm)	Denied qualified immunity — factual record could show punitive use in violation of Bell
Officer sitting on child’s chest	Blackmon: Gutierrez authorized sitting on chest as punishment	Gutierrez: act was justified by compliance/discipline; denies clearly established violation	Denied qualified immunity — record could permit inference of punishment without penological purpose
Denial/delay of mental-health care (deliberate indifference)	Blackmon: Fitzjarrald/Taylor knew of severe suicidal behavior and delayed/denied access to qualified care	Defendants: not licensed clinicians, could not provide treatment; therefore no deliberate indifference	Denied qualified immunity — gatekeeping/delay could show subjective deliberate indifference under Estelle/Farmer when viewed in plaintiff’s favor
Failure to transfer to unlocked shelter	Blackmon: Sutton should have transferred him back to shelter where he had been housed	Sutton: placement decisions tied to flight risk, prior misconduct; no clearly established right to transfer	Qualified immunity granted for failure-to-transfer claim — no clearly established freestanding right to transfer in 1997

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainees may not be punished; tests for express intent or lack of reasonable relation to legitimate objectives)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective deliberate indifference standard: conscious disregard of substantial risk)
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992) (use-of-force standard for convicted prisoners: malicious and sadistic to cause harm)
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) (due process protections for involuntarily committed persons; relevant to detainee care)
Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980) (medical need objective test—obviousness to layperson—and gatekeeper liability)
Giron v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 191 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 1999) (force without disciplinary rationale violates constitutional protections)
Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857 (6th Cir. 1976) (delay/denial of meaningful medical care can show conscious disregard of serious risk)