8 F.4th 187
3d Cir.2021Background
- Raheem Jacobs, a pretrial detainee at Cumberland County Jail, fought another inmate; ~15 minutes later officers returned to retrieve Jacobs.
- Security video (silent) shows officers casually waiting, then Armstrong grabbed Jacobs; Jacobs appeared compliant with hands behind his back when Officer Williams struck him in the neck and head, after which officers forced Jacobs to the floor; portions on the floor and in an elevator lack video/audio.
- Internal investigation and prosecutor concluded Williams used excessive force; Williams was criminally charged; Jacobs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment excessive force.
- District Court, construing undisclosed portions of the record in Jacobs’s favor (not blatantly contradicted by video), denied summary judgment and qualified immunity to Williams and other officers (except one who did not touch Jacobs).
- On interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit reviewed de novo whether the accepted facts showed a Fourteenth Amendment violation and whether the unlawfulness was clearly established, and affirmed the District Court’s denials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams used excessive force against a pretrial detainee under the Fourteenth Amendment | Williams struck and was part of a continued beating of a compliant, nonthreatening detainee — gratuitous force amounting to punishment | Officers claim they perceived a threat from words or actions by Jacobs, making force reasonable | The facts viewed for purposes of interlocutory review permit a jury to find Williams used objectively unreasonable, gratuitous force; violation found |
| Proper legal standard for pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims | Fourteenth Amendment prohibits force amounting to punishment; objective-reasonableness standard applies | N/A (issue is settled by precedent) | Kingsley’s objective-reasonableness test governs pretrial-detainee excessive-force claims |
| Whether a reasonable officer would have known the force was unlawful (qualified immunity) | Existing law put officers on notice that striking a subdued, nonthreatening inmate is unlawful | Reasonable mistake about threat or applicability of standards could justify immunity | Law was clearly established; any reasonable officer would know strikes on a restrained, nonthreatening detainee are unlawful; qualified immunity denied |
| Scope of appellate review given security video evidence | District Court’s factual framing (accepting plaintiff where video does not blatantly contradict) is permissible | Video allegedly contradicts plaintiff’s account such that summary judgment should be granted | Under Scott v. Harris, appellate review accepts the district court’s factual set unless the video blatantly contradicts it; here the video did not blatantly contradict Jacobs’ version, so district court’s facts stand |
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 (objective-reasonableness test for excessive force)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can bar a plaintiff’s version only if it blatantly contradicts it)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (Fourteenth Amendment protects pretrial detainees’ rights comparable to those of convicted prisoners)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (gratuitous force lacks penological justification and can be unlawful)
- Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318 (an officer may not use gratuitous force against a subdued inmate)
- Estate of Davis v. Delo, 115 F.3d 1388 (striking an unresisting inmate while others restrain him violates constitutional protections)
- Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295 (gratuitous force against already subdued or incapacitated prisoners is unlawful)
- Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (not every push or shove is a constitutional violation but excessive force is actionable)