35 F.4th 1051
6th Cir.2022Background
- The court received a petition for rehearing en banc after a panel decision addressing Fourteenth Amendment claims by a pretrial detainee; the petition was denied (less than a majority voted for rehearing).
- Judge John K. Bush filed a dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc, criticizing the panel majority for departing from Sixth Circuit precedent.
- Historically the Sixth Circuit applied the Eighth/Elevated Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard from Farmer v. Brennan for pretrial detainee medical-needs and failure-to-protect claims.
- The panel in Brawner departed from that precedent for medical-needs claims, relying on Kingsley v. Hendrickson to adopt a different (objective) standard, producing circuit-level confusion.
- The instant panel majority extended that departure to failure-to-protect claims, articulating an ambiguous “intentional” (but not deliberately indifferent) test for liability without clarifying mental-state, causation, or scope questions.
- The dissent warns the new test is vague, may expand liability unpredictably (including differing standards for pretrial vs. convicted detainees housed together), and urges Supreme Court guidance to resolve the split among circuits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rehearing en banc was warranted | Petitioners argued precedential issues require full-court review to restore Farmer-based standard | Panel majority/opponents argued issues were fully considered; rehearing unnecessary | Rehearing en banc denied (split court); dissent urges review |
| Proper Fourteenth Amendment standard for pretrial detainee failure-to-protect claims | Apply Farmer deliberate-indifference (subjective awareness of risk) | Kingsley-based approach or a different objective/intentional test displaces Farmer | Panel majority adopted an ambiguous “intentional” test over Farmer; en banc denied |
| Whether Kingsley eliminated subjective mental-state inquiry for medical-needs/failure-to-protect claims | Kingsley should not eliminate inquiry into defendant’s state of mind | Kingsley (and subsequent panels) support an objective standard for pretrial-detainee claims | Circuit remains split; some panels adopt Kingsley-objective, others retain Farmer; dissent calls for Supreme Court clarity |
| Causation and scope of liability (but-for vs proximate; multiple officials) | Plaintiffs seek clear rules on causation and liability for multiple officials | Defendants urge limits and clarity to avoid overly broad liability | Panel did not clarify causation or scope; dissent criticizes ambiguity and potential expansion of liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (established deliberate-indifference standard for prison conditions)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (articulated objective standard for excessive-force claims by pretrial detainees)
- Brawner v. Scott County, 14 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2021) (panel applied Kingsley to medical-needs claims; prompted en banc dispute)
- Westmoreland v. Butler County, 29 F.4th 721 (6th Cir. 2022) (panel extended departure from Farmer to failure-to-protect claims; central to dissent)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (constitutional due process claims cannot rest on negligence)
- Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2017) (applied Kingsley’s objective analysis to Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claims)
- Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc: applied Kingsley to failure-to-protect claims by pretrial detainees)
- Cope v. Cogdill, 3 F.4th 198 (5th Cir. 2021) (refused to extend Kingsley; retained deliberate-indifference standard)