Justin Shuford v. R.L. Butch Conway
666 F. App'x 811
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Four pretrial detainees at Gwinnett County Jail (Shuford, De Jesus, Anisko, Lunde) allege RRT used excessive force and prolonged restraint during entries into isolation/admissions cells after routine nonviolent arrestees displayed minor or self-harm risk behavior. Videos exist for each incident.
- RRT tactics included dynamic SWAT-style entry, Pepperball, Hotshot, Taser, pressure-point control, slams to floor/head, and placement in restraint chairs for ~3.5–4+ hours; medical checks occurred after restraint and monitoring continued.
- Plaintiffs sued Sheriff Conway, Col. Don Pinkard (Jail Admin), and Lt. Col. Carl Sims (RRT Commander) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourteenth Amendment excessive force and sought damages and injunctive relief.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants on qualified immunity and supervisory-liability grounds; Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo.
- The court found disputed facts (supported by video) showing force was objectively unreasonable and that the law was clearly established; reversed qualified immunity and reversed dismissal of injunctive-relief claims.
- The court affirmed no supervisory liability as to Col. Pinkard, but reversed as to Sheriff Conway and Lt. Col. Sims on notice/custom theories (though it affirmed no deliberate-indifference supervisory liability for Sims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RRT force violated Fourteenth Amendment (pretrial detainees) | Force was objectively unreasonable: entries were unannounced, plaintiffs were nonviolent or compliant, excessive devices used, prolonged restraint | Force was justified by safety/self-harm risk and jail security; force and restraints were lawful responses | Reversed: facts (viewed for plaintiffs) create genuine dispute that force was objectively unreasonable; constitutional violation shown |
| Whether right was clearly established at time of incidents | Pre-existing Supreme Court/Circuit precedent (Bell, Ort, Danley, Cockrell) put officers on fair notice that continued force after resistance ceased is unconstitutional | Defendants argued lack of clearly analogous precedent and asserted qualified immunity | Reversed: law in this Circuit clearly established that excessive force beyond need is unconstitutional; officers had fair warning |
| Supervisory liability for Sheriff Conway & Lt. Col. Sims | Conway/Sims had notice via numerous RRT videos, complaints, and prior referrals; policies/customs and failure to act amounted to causal connection/deliberate indifference | Defendants argued no awareness of widespread abuse and that Sims referred incidents for investigation, negating gross negligence | Reversed in part: material factual disputes exist as to Conway and Sims on notice/widespread-abuse and Conway on deliberate indifference; summary judgment improper |
| Supervisory liability for Col. Pinkard | Plaintiffs argued Pinkard had command oversight and thus liability | Pinkard delegated RRT oversight to the Commander and had no record evidence of awareness or gross negligence | Affirmed: no supervisory liability for Pinkard (no notice, no gross negligence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015) (objective-reasonableness standard for pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainees’ protection against objectively unreasonable force and conditions)
- Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007) (applying objective factors to Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims)
- Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2008) (continuation of substantial force after resistance ceases is excessive)
- Ort v. White, 813 F.2d 318 (11th Cir. 1987) (use of force beyond necessity and after necessity ceases violates the Constitution)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (broad principle can clearly establish constitutional violations for qualified-immunity purposes)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (qualified immunity standard and reliance on law existing at time of conduct)