Piazza v. Jefferson Cnty.
923 F.3d 947
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Ricky Hinkle, a pretrial detainee with alcoholism and heart disease, was moved to a cell on Level 3 of the Birmingham City Jail after showing withdrawal/delusional behavior.
- After failing to comply fully while being relocated, Deputy Habimana Dukuzumuremyi tased Hinkle once (5 seconds), which rendered Hinkle prostrate and incontinent.
- Eight seconds after the first shock, while Hinkle lay motionless, Dukuzumuremyi deployed his taser a second time; Hinkle soon went into cardiac arrest and later died.
- Hinkle’s son (as personal representative) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force (Dukuzumuremyi), failure to intervene (Cotten), and supervisory liability for excessive force and deliberate indifference to medical needs (Sheriff Hale and Captain Eddings).
- The district court denied qualified immunity for the excessive-force claim against Dukuzumuremyi and for supervisory claims against Hale and Eddings; the deputies appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the second tasing violated the Fourteenth Amendment (excessive force) | Hunter: second shock of an already-incapacitated, incontinent detainee was objectively unreasonable | Dukuzumuremyi: Hinkle failed to obey orders to roll over; split-second decision by officer justified force | Held: Second tasing was objectively unreasonable; excessive force violated Fourteenth Amendment |
| Whether the law was clearly established such that Dukuzumuremyi is not entitled to qualified immunity | Hunter: longstanding Eleventh Circuit precedent prohibits force on detainees who have stopped resisting, so officer had fair warning | Dukuzumuremyi: no clear taser-specific rule; reasonable officer could believe action lawful | Held: Law was clearly established—prior precedent gave fair warning; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether supervisory liability exists for failure to train/policy leading to excessive force (Hale, Eddings) | Hunter: jail lacked adequate policies; supervisors responsible for resulting constitutional violation | Hale/Eddings: no allegations of prior similar incidents or notice; no personal participation | Held: Plaintiff pleaded only a single incident and offered conclusory policy allegations—insufficient to show causal custom or deliberate indifference; qualified immunity granted |
| Whether supervisory liability exists for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (Hale, Eddings) | Hunter: systemic failure to treat alcoholism/medication upon intake caused harm | Hale/Eddings: no factual allegations of similar incidents or notice to supervisors | Held: Complaint lacked factual allegations showing policies, notice, or pattern; supervisory claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (objective-reasonableness standard for pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness framework for seizures)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (pretrial detainees may not be punished; conditions/punishment inquiry)
- Danley v. Allen, 540 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir.) (force on detainee who stopped resisting is excessive)
- Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.) (prohibition on gratuitous force against subdued detainee)
- Fils v. City of Aventura, 647 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.) (no meaningful distinction among types of force—taser, pepper spray, fists—against unresisting suspects)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (clearly established law inquiry and fair-warning standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint must contain factual allegations, not conclusory assertions)