Michael Dilworth v. Captain Adams, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20039

Background

Pretrial detainee Michael Dilworth was placed twice in disciplinary segregation at New Hanover County Detention Facility (45 days each time; total 85 days) after two altercations; he received no disciplinary hearings before each sanction.
After the first placement (May 11, 2013) he filed a written appeal; administrative review dismissed it and he remained in segregation until June 20.
After a second incident (July 5, 2013) involving Officers Cookson and Trott (disputed facts; video exists), Dilworth again was placed in segregation for 45 days, requested a hearing and witnesses, and his appeal was denied; he served the full sanction.
Dilworth sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) procedural due process violations for imposing disciplinary segregation without a hearing and (2) excessive force by the officers in the July incident.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants: it found the written-appeal process satisfied due process for a pretrial detainee, and it applied a subjective "malicious and sadistic" standard to reject the excessive force claim.
The Fourth Circuit reversed as to due process (entering judgment for Dilworth), held Sandin inapplicable to pretrial detainees, required Wolff hearing protections, and remanded the excessive force claim for reconsideration under Kingsley’s objective standard.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether placing a pretrial detainee in disciplinary segregation implicates a protected liberty interest requiring procedural due process	Dilworth: segregation as disciplinary punishment implicates liberty and requires a hearing before punishment	Defendants: Sandin’s "atypical and significant hardship" test applies, so no protected liberty interest here	Held: Bell governs pretrial detainees; Sandin (convicted prisoners) does not apply; disciplinary segregation intended as punishment implicates liberty and requires due process
What process is constitutionally required before imposing disciplinary segregation on a pretrial detainee	Dilworth: Wolff requires a hearing with ability to call witnesses, 24-hour notice, and written findings	Defendants: written appeal after sanction suffices; immediate segregation and later appeal meet security needs	Held: Wolff’s minimum protections (including a hearing before final punishment) apply; written post‑hoc appeal is inadequate
Whether Dilworth was afforded constitutionally adequate process under facility policy and Wolff	Dilworth: he received only a post‑sanction written appeal and no hearing, violating Wolff and facility policy	Defendants: argue security measures and administrative procedures satisfy requirements (and initially relied on Sandin)	Held: Defendants concede no hearing was provided; process was inadequate; judgment entered for Dilworth on due process and remand for damages
Standard for pretrial detainee excessive force claims	Dilworth: force used was excessive and unconstitutional	Defendants: force was in good faith; district court applied a subjective malicious‑and‑sadistic intent standard and found no culpable state of mind	Held: Kingsley requires an objective‑reasonableness standard for pretrial detainees; excessive force claim vacated and remanded for adjudication under the objective standard (including review of incident video)

Key Cases Cited

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (pretrial detainees may not be punished prior to adjudication; punitive conditions implicate liberty)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (established "atypical and significant hardship" test for liberty interests of convicted prisoners)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (minimum procedural protections in prison disciplinary proceedings: notice, hearing, ability to call witnesses, written findings)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (pretrial detainee excessive‑force claims judged under an objective‑reasonableness standard)
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (discusses administrative segregation pending investigation/hearing)