928 F.3d 1155
10th Cir.2019Background
- Colbruno, a pretrial detainee, ingested metal parts and was transported from county jail to a hospital for urgent care.
- During transport he soiled his smock; upon arrival six deputies removed the smock and escorted him through public hospital areas naked except for orange mittens.
- Hospital staff observed and reported the exposure; Colbruno was then chained to a hospital bed and later brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the deputies.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on qualified-immunity grounds; the district court denied the motion based on the complaint's allegations.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, treated the claim as one by a pretrial detainee under the Fourteenth Amendment (due process), and affirmed denial of qualified immunity except as to the post-admission chaining claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether walking a pretrial detainee nude through public hospital areas violates substantive due process | Colbruno: involuntary public nudity was not related to any legitimate purpose and thus was unconstitutional punishment/abuse of detainee | Deputies: urgent medical need justified rapid transport without taking time to obtain covering; conduct reasonable | Court: Allegations suffice to state a Fourteenth Amendment due-process violation (objective Kingsley/Bell standard) |
| Whether deputies are entitled to qualified immunity for the alleged exposure | Colbruno: right was clearly established; exposing a detainee nude is obviously unlawful | Deputies: no clearly established precedent on these facts; they reasonably believed urgent care justified conduct | Court: Qualified immunity denied — the unlawfulness was sufficiently clear under Bell and related precedent (exception for "obvious" violations) |
| Whether the chaining of Colbruno to the hospital bed after delivery violated due process | Colbruno: chaining was part of the humiliating exposure and unconstitutional | Deputies: restraint was justified by security/medical concerns | Court: Qualified immunity applies to the chaining claim; restraint was plausibly related to legitimate purposes and not clearly unlawful |
| Proper constitutional framework for pretrial detainee mistreatment claims | Colbruno: mistreatment assessed under Fourteenth Amendment objective standard (no subjective intent required) | Deputies/dissent: substantive due process claims for executive action should use the "shocks the conscience" standard requiring intent/egregiousness | Court: Applies Fourteenth Amendment objective standard (Kingsley/Bell) for pretrial detainee mistreatment; rejects shocks-the-conscience as exclusive for this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainees may not be punished; restrictions must be rationally related to legitimate purpose)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims judged by objective standard; no subjective intent requirement)
- Blackmon v. Sutton, 734 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2013) (denial of qualified immunity where restraint and stripping of juvenile detainee could be punishment)
- Shroff v. Spellman, 604 F.3d 1179 (10th Cir. 2010) (privacy interest violated when forced exposure occurred without justification)
- Hill v. Bogans, 735 F.2d 391 (10th Cir. 1984) (strip-search/exposure in public lobby violated Fourth Amendment where unnecessary)
- Farmer v. Perrill, 288 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2002) (inmates have right not to be subjected to humiliating strip searches in view of others)