Hitzke v. Village of Mundelein, 524 F.Supp.3d 822

Around 11:00 p.m. on June 11, 2019, Ava (a minor) was arrested on an outstanding warrant and handcuffed by two unknown Mundelein officers.
The left handcuff jammed and could not be removed at the police station; officers and Mundelein Fire Department personnel took Ava to a fire department garage to remove it.
They used a power saw to cut the cuff; the saw heated the metal and allegedly caused significant burns, permanent scarring, and disfigurement to Ava’s left wrist.
Emily Hitzke (as next friend) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (federal) alleging deliberate indifference and/or excessive force, and asserted an Illinois willful-and-wanton misconduct claim.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (inter alia) that cuffing was lawful, using a saw in an emergency did not state a constitutional claim, and the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
The court denied dismissal: it found the complaint plausibly pleaded both deliberate indifference and excessive force claims and declined to resolve qualified immunity at this early stage; it retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether pleading supports a deliberate indifference claim by a pretrial detainee	Officers were subjectively aware of a substantial risk from using a power saw and failed to protect Ava	Use of cuffs and emergency removal were justified; no deliberate-indifference claim stated	Court: Allegations plausibly show awareness of risk and failure to protect; claim survives dismissal
Whether pleading supports an excessive force claim based on removal method	Using a power saw on a cuff around a wrist inflicted unnecessary pain despite no flight/threat risk	Removal was an emergency, and saw use was reasonable under the circumstances	Court: Allegations suffice to state an excessive force claim; saw use could be unreasonable
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage	Right to protection from deliberate indifference and from knowing handcuff misuse was clearly established	No directly analogous precedent about saw removal; officers could reasonably believe conduct lawful	Court: Too early to decide immunity; §1983 rights alleged were established and factual development is needed
Whether the court should keep the state willful-and-wanton claim	Plaintiff asserts it alongside federal claim	Defendants urged declining supplemental jurisdiction	Court: Retains supplemental jurisdiction because a federal claim remains viable

Payne for Hicks v. Churchich, 161 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 1998) (deliberate-indifference standard for pretrial detainees)
Rooni v. Biser, 742 F.3d 737 (7th Cir. 2014) (right to be free from knowing use of handcuffs that inflict unnecessary pain)
Stainback v. Dixon, 569 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2009) (Fourth Amendment reasonableness governs force used to effect arrest)
Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional Medical Services, 675 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 2012) (Fourteenth Amendment claims for pretrial detainees considered alongside Eighth Amendment cases)
Abbott v. Sangamon County, 705 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2013) (qualified immunity: "egregious" conduct rule for rare cases)
Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity framework)
Reed v. Palmer, 906 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2018) (assessing whether law was clearly established)
Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (must define clearly established rights with appropriate specificity)