978 F.3d 1165
10th Cir.2020Background
- Marvin Rowell was arrested for public intoxication and taken to the Muskogee County Jail intake area; he appeared intoxicated, uncooperative, and repeatedly wandered in the intake room.
- Officers West and Slay, with authorization from Shift Supervisor Rosson to use a restraint chair if needed, escorted Rowell down a hallway to place him in a restraint chair.
- While escorting him, Officer West grabbed Rowell’s upper right arm and applied modest forward pressure as Rowell turned his head back; Rowell then fell, struck his head, and later died from blunt-head injuries (acute subdural hematoma).
- The Estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourteenth Amendment excessive force (West), failure to intervene (Slay), supervisory deliberate indifference (Rosson), and municipal/official‑capacity claims against Sheriff Frazier and the County.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding the hallway contact was de minimis and not a constitutional violation; the Tenth Circuit affirmed after applying Kingsley’s objective‑reasonableness factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer West used excessive force against a pretrial detainee (Fourteenth Amendment) | Rowell’s unresisted, nonviolent conduct made any force gratuitous and unconstitutional | Modest forward pressure to guide an intoxicated, uncooperative detainee was reasonable under Kingsley | No constitutional violation — force was objectively reasonable when balancing Kingsley factors |
| Whether the contact was de minimis and thus nonactionable | Estate: injury (death) shows force was excessive, de minimis label inappropriate | Defendants: contact was modest, non‑deadly, and proportional to need | Court treated force as modest and objectively reasonable; did not rely solely on de minimis doctrine |
| Failure to intervene (Officer Slay) | Slay failed to prevent West’s excessive force | Slay contingent on existence of excessive force by West | Claim fails because no underlying excessive force by West |
| Supervisory and municipal liability (Rosson, Sheriff, County) | Supervisory/municipal policies and training made defendants liable for constitutional breach | Liability requires an underlying constitutional violation by an officer | Claims fail because there was no underlying constitutional violation by Officer West |
Key Cases Cited
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (establishes objective‑reasonableness standard for pretrial detainee excessive‑force claims)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainees’ conditions of confinement governed by Due Process, not Eighth Amendment)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (objective‑reasonableness frame for force claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) (qualified immunity: two‑prong framework and judicial discretion in order of analysis)
- Monell v. New York Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires an underlying constitutional violation and a policy/custom cause)
- Estate of Booker v. Gomez, 745 F.3d 405 (10th Cir. 2014) (failure‑to‑intervene claim hinges on existence of another officer’s excessive force)
- Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir. 2007) (small amount of force to effect custody can be permissible)
- Thomson v. Salt Lake Cnty., 584 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2009) (definition/discussion of deadly force)
- Tanberg v. Sholtis, 401 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2005) (violation of departmental policy does not by itself make an arrest or use of force unconstitutional)