18 F.4th 551
6th Cir.2021Background
- The full Sixth Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc; Judge Readler filed a dissent from that denial criticizing circuit precedent on detainee medical claims.
- Readler argues Brawner v. Scott County adopted an objective, “reasonable official”/reckless-disregard standard for pretrial-detainee medical claims by importing Kingsley’s excessive-force framework.
- He contends this departs from Farmer v. Brennan’s governing deliberate-indifference standard, which requires subjective awareness and inference by the official.
- Readler catalogs Sixth Circuit decisions (e.g., Terrance, Garretson, Dominguez, Phillips) that he says have already diluted Farmer by treating the subjective prong as effectively objective (what an official should have known).
- He warns that using summary-judgment inferences, expert testimony, and an objective test risks “tortifying” the Constitution—converting negligence medical claims into constitutional liability—and imposes heavy burdens on jail administrators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for pretrial-detainee deliberate indifference | Brawner/majority: apply an objective “reasonable official” reckless-disregard standard (Kingsley-informed) | Readler: retain Farmer’s subjective deliberate-indifference test—official must actually know and draw inference | Rehearing denied; panel rule stands for now; Readler dissents urging en banc correction |
| Applicability of Kingsley beyond excessive-force claims | Kingsley’s objective approach can inform other pretrial-detainee contexts, including medical care | Kingsley is limited to excessive-force; should not be extended to medical-deliberate-indifference claims | Rehearing denied; dissent rejects extending Kingsley |
| Role of Farmer’s “obvious risk” language | Courts may treat obviousness as sufficient to infer actual knowledge (objective proof satisfies subjective prong) | Readler: Farmer’s aside should not be converted into an objective-only rule; requires proof of actual awareness | Sixth Circuit practice often treats obviousness as dispositive; dissent argues this is doctrinally incorrect |
| Use of summary judgment and expert testimony to show knowledge | Plaintiffs can survive summary judgment by showing officials “should have known” or via expert testimony about what a reasonable clinician would know | Readler: this collapses constitutional claims into negligence/tort law and expands liability beyond Farmer’s limits | Rehearing denied; dissent warns against constitutional tortification |
Key Cases Cited
- Brawner v. Scott County, 14 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2021) (panel decision adopting an objective “reckless disregard” formulation for some detainee medical claims)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (established that deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness and inference of substantial risk)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (adopted an objective-unreasonableness standard for excessive-force claims by pretrial detainees)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment requires that prisoners receive medical care)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainees may not be punished prior to adjudication; due-process protections apply)
- Terrance v. Northville Reg’l Psychiatric Hosp., 286 F.3d 834 (6th Cir. 2002) (applied an objective-reasonable-doctor inquiry in a detainee medical case)
- Garretson v. City of Madison Heights, 407 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff may survive by showing official aware of facts from which inference of risk could be drawn)
- Est. of Carter v. City of Detroit, 408 F.3d 305 (6th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference may be found from a strong objective showing)
- Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2009) (used objective-should-have-known formulations in medical-delay claim)
- Edmo v. Corizon, Inc., 949 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. 2020) (panel and dissents criticizing conversion of negligence standards into deliberate-indifference holdings)
- Foelker v. Outagamie County, 394 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2005) (dissent warned against allowing negligence-based claims to survive as deliberate indifference)
- Williams v. Mehra, 186 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 1999) (last en banc Sixth Circuit decision addressing detainee deliberate-indifference standards)
- Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974) (recognizes administrative burdens on prison officials and courts’ limited institutional competence)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (commentary on the risk of converting broad policy into constitutional tort)