Kingsley v. Hendrickson
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Other courts extended or positively applied Kingsley, including the Fourth Circuit in Short v. Hartman. The 2015 Castro v. County of Los Angeles panel opinion, which had confined Kingsley, was withdrawn on rehearing; the 2016 en banc court instead extended Kingsley to failure-to-protect claims, so the withdrawn panel opinion produces no entry.
4,087 later cases cite Kingsley v. Hendrickson; 272 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Kingsley v. Hendrickson?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Fifth Circuit declined to extend Kingsley's objective standard to a pretrial detainee's failure-to-protect claim and retained its circuit's subjective standard.
Alderson v. Concordia Parish Correctional Facility · Fifth Circuit · filed
Because the Fifth Circuit has continued to rely on Hare and to apply a subjective standard post-Kingsley, this panel is bound by our rule of orderliness. See Estate of Henson v. Wichita Cty., 795 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2015); see also Hyatt v. Thomas, 843 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2016); Zimmerman v. Cutler, 657 Fed.Appx. 340 (5th Cir. 2016). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit is the only circuit to have extended Kingsley's objective standard to failure-to-protect claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eleventh Circuit confined Kingsley to excessive-force claims and held that it did not abrogate circuit precedent requiring deliberate indifference for inadequate medical care.
Dang ex rel. Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole County · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Dang argues that following Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2475 (2015), a pretrial detainee alleging constitutionally deficient medical care need not show deliberate indifference. We cannot and need not reach this question. First, Kingsley involved an excessive-force claim, not a claim of inadequate medical treatment due to deliberate indifference. Therefore, it is not “squarely on point” with and does not “actually abrogate or directly conflict with,” United States v. Kaley, 579 F.3d 1246, 1255 (11th Cir. 2009) (citations and quotation marks omitted), our prior precedent identifying the standard we apply in this opinion to Dang’s claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eighth Circuit declined to extend Kingsley's objective standard to a pretrial detainee's deliberate-indifference claim and retained its subjective standard.
Norman Whitney, Sr. v. City of St. Louis, Missouri · Eighth Circuit · filed
Whitney Sr. asserts that the Supreme Court’s conclusion in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2472 (2015), that “the relevant standard is objective not subjective” should apply here. Kingsley does not control because it was an excessive force case, not a deliberate indifference case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Eleventh Circuit confined Kingsley to excessive-force claims and held that it did not undermine the circuit's subjective deliberate-indifference precedent.
Latunja Johnson v. Bessemer, Alabama, City of · Eleventh Circuit · filed
Kingsley does not undermine our earlier Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference precedents.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limited Kingsley’s objective standard to excessive-force claims and retained the subjective deliberate-indifference standard for the pretrial detainee’s conditions claims.
Senay v. Hopkins County Jail · Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the only explicit exception in the Sixth Circuit to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are co-extensive with rights under the Fourteenth Amendment pertains to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id. at 938 n.3 (recognizing that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs pretrial detainee claims may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a pretrial detainee claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need). Therefore, the Court will apply the Eighth Amendment standard to the instant claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Kingsley's objective standard to a pretrial detainee's serious-medical-need claim and applied the Eighth Amendment standard.
Wheatley v. Ford · United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the only explicit exception in the Sixth Circuit to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are co-extensive with rights under the Fourteenth Amendment pertains to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id. at 938 n.3 (recognizing that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs pretrial detainee claims may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a pretrial detainee claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need). Therefore, the Court will analyze Plaintiff’s claims under the Eighth Amendment standard.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limited Kingsley’s objective standard to excessive-force claims and required subjective deliberate indifference for the pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim.
Minion v. Lindsey · Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the Sixth Circuit has recognized only one explicit exception to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are analogous to rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This exception applies only to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id. at 938 n.3 (noting that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective-intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs claims by pretrial detainees may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need brought by a pretrial detainee); see also Walker v. Miller, No. 18-3209, 2018 WL 7575709, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018) (continuing to apply the traditional standard to a deliberate- indifference-to-a-serious-medical-need claim brought by a pretrial detainee).1 That is, for a violation premised on inadequate medical care, a prisoner must demonstrate that the defendant acted, or failed to act, with “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. ”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limited Kingsley to excessive-force claims and applied the traditional subjective deliberate-indifference standard to other Fourteenth Amendment claims.
Mallory v. Bolton · Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the Sixth Circuit has recognized only one explicit exception to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are analogous to rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This exception applies to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id.at 938 n.3 (noting that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective-intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs claims by pretrial detainees may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need brought by a pretrial detainee); see also Walker v. Miller, No. 18-3209, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29348, at *2 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018) (continuing to apply the traditional standard to a deliberate-indifference-to-a-serious-medical-need claim brought by a pretrial detainee). In light of this jurisprudence, for purposes of this review, the Court will analyze Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment non-excessive-force claims under the traditional Eighth Amendment deliberate- indifference standard.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Kingsley's objective rule to excessive force and applied the co-extensive Eighth Amendment framework to the pretrial detainee's other claims.
Rodriguez Ortiz v. Mafnas (PLR2) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee · filed
Further, Eighth Amendment rights are generally co-extensive with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Richmond, 885 F.3d at 938 n. 3 (recognizing that Kingsley, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a pretrial detainee claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need). Accordingly, Eighth Amendment prisoner claims and Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee claims are analyzed “under the same rubric.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Kingsley's objective excessive-force standard to a pretrial detainee's denial-of-medical-care claim and retained the circuit's subjective standard.
Bush v. Bowling · United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma · filed
Because Kingsley did not address the standard applicable to a pretrial detainee’s denial of medical care claim, this court follows existing Tenth Circuit precedent as to the appropriate standard.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limited Kingsley to excessive-force claims and applied the two-component Eighth Amendment standard to the pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim.
Barbour v. Allen · Western District of Kentucky · filed
Indeed, at this time, the only explicit exception in the Sixth Circuit to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are co-extensive with rights under the Fourteenth Amendment pertains to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id. at 938 n.3 (recognizing that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs pretrial detainee claims may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a pretrial detainee deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim); see also Walker v. Miller, No. 18-3209, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29348 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018) (continuing to apply the traditional standard to a deliberate indifference to a serious medical need claim brought by a pretrial detainee). An Eighth Amendment claim requires a plaintiff to prove two distinct components - one objective and one subjective.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley to the pretrial detainee’s medical and suicide-risk claim and required both objective and subjective deliberate indifference.
Jordan v. Summit County, Ohio and Summit County Board of Commissioners · Northern District of Ohio · filed
Although there has been debate as to the application of Kingsley to deliberate indifference claims, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the Sixth Circuit has determined that Kingsley eliminated the subjective component of an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim. See Martin, 2020 WL 3604363, 4, n. 4 (“leav[ing] the Kingsley question for another day[]”). Thus, in resolving the pending motions, the Court applies both the objective and subjective components of the Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard as have other courts since Kingsley.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley to pretrial-detainee deliberate-indifference claims and required both objective and subjective components.
Cameron v. Bouchard · Eastern District of Michigan · filed
The Sixth Circuit has not decided whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), abrogated the subjective component when evaluating the deliberate indifference claims of pretrial detainees. See Richmond v. Huq, 885 F.3d 923, 938 n.3 (6th Cir. 2018). The Court will proceed as if pretrial detainees must still satisfy both components, even though the Sixth Circuit has recognized that decisions of other circuit courts “call[] into serious doubt” whether a pretrial detainee must satisfy the subjective component.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Kingsley's objective rule to a pretrial detainee's medical-care claim and applied the subjective deliberate-indifference standard.
Judd v. Buncombe County · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · filed
The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See, e.g., Duff v. Potter, 665 F. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). The Court will apply the deliberate indifference standard in this case, as the relevant Fourth Circuit case law has not been overruled and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limited Kingsley to excessive-force claims and continued the traditional subjective deliberate-indifference standard for the pretrial detainee’s conditions and medical claims.
Austin v. Hall · Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the Sixth Circuit has recognized only one explicit exception to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are analogous to rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The exception applies only to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id. at 938 n.3 (noting that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs claims by pretrial detainees may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need brought by a pretrial detainee); see also Cameron v. Bouchard, No. 20-1469, __ F. App’x __, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21480, at *12 (6th Cir. July 9, 2020) (again declining to resolve issue of whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s standard applies to a deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claim); Walker v. Miller, No. 18-3209, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 29348, at *3 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2018) (continuing to apply the traditional standard to a deliberate-indifference claim brought by a pretrial detainee).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Kingsley's objective standard beyond excessive force to a pretrial detainee's failure-to-protect and medical-care claims.
Michelson v. Miller · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina · filed
The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See, e.g., Duff v. Potter, 665 F. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). The Court will apply the deliberate indifference standard in this case, as the relevant Fourth Circuit case law has not been overruled and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit declined to extend Kingsley's objective standard to pretrial-detainee medical-care claims and retained a subjective component for deliberate indifference.
Strain v. Regalado · Tenth Circuit · filed
We decline to extend Kingsley to Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims for several reasons. First, Kingsley turned on considerations 4 The Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have declined to extend Kingsley to deliberate indifference claims. Whitney v. City of St. Louis, 887 F.3d 857, 860 n.4 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding that “Kingsley does not control because it was an excessive force case, not a deliberate indifference case”); Dang ex rel. Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole Cty., 871 F.3d 1272, 1279 n.2 (11th Cir. 2017) (declining to apply Kingsley to a deliberate indifference claim because “Kingsley involved an excessive- force claim, not a claim of inadequate medical treatment due to deliberate indifference,” so Kingsley “does not actually abrogate or directly conflict with our prior precedent” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 419 n.4 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting that “the Fifth Circuit has continued to . . . apply a subjective standard post-Kingsley”). Other courts, including the Third Circuit, have expressed doubts about the application of Kingsley, but declined to address the issue. See Moore v. Luffey, 767 F. App’x 335, 340 n.2 (3d Cir. 2019) (unpublished) (acknowledging that the plaintiff did not cite any binding authority “applying Kingsley to a claim of deliberate indifference to a detainee’s serious medical needs,” but declining to address whether to apply a new standard in this case). On the other hand, the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have extended Kingsley to the deliberate indifference context. Miranda v. Cty. of Lake, 900 F.3d 335, 352 (7th Cir. 2018) (concluding, “along with the Ninth and Second Circuits, that medical-care claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment are subject only to the objective unreasonableness inquiry identified in Kingsley”); Gordon v. Cty. of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2018) (relying on the “broad wording of Kingsley” to extend its holding to Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims); Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 34–35 (2d Cir. 2017) (overruling a case applying the subjective test to a deliberate indifference claim to apply a purely objective standard in the context of conditions of confinement claims; further “concluding that deliberate indifference should be defined objectively for a claim of a due process violation” (id. at 35)). 9 unique to excessive force claims: whether the use of force amounted to punishment, not on the status of the detainee. Next, the nature of a deliberate indifference claim infers a subjective component. Finally, principles of stare decisis weigh against overruling precedent to extend a Supreme Court holding to a new context or new category of claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley beyond excessive force to a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim and applied the subjective deliberate-indifference standard.
Scott v. Watson · Western District of North Carolina · filed
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the United States Supreme Court held that, to state an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must only show that the force “purposefully and knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable” because, although prisoners may not be punished cruelly or unusually, pretrial detainees may not be punished at all. 576 U.S. 389 (2015). Some circuits have held, in light of Kingsley, that an objective reasonableness standard should apply in custodial contexts beyond excessive force. See e.g., Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019) (extending the objective standard to conditions of confinement cases): Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (same); Castro v. City of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (extending the objective reasonableness standard to failure to protect claims). The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See e.g. Duff v. Potter, 665 Fed. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). The Court will apply the deliberate indifference standard in this case, as the relevant Fourth Circuit case law has not been overruled and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so. See e.g., Shover v. Chestnut, 798 Fed. App’x 760, 761-62 (4th Cir. 2020) (applying the deliberate indifference standard to a pretrial detainee’s medical claim without discussing Kingsley).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Kingsley's objective standard to excessive-force claims and retained a subjective deliberate-indifference standard for a pretrial detainee's medical-care claim.
Sutherlin v. McCoy · United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the only explicit exception in the Sixth Circuit to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are co-extensive with rights under the Fourteenth Amendment pertains to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. See, e.g., Richmond v. Huq, 885 F.3d 928, 938 n.3 (recognizing that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs pretrial detainee claims may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a pretrial detainee claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limited Kingsley to excessive-force claims and continued the traditional subjective deliberate-indifference standard for the pretrial detainee’s conditions claim.
Loyd v. Daviess County Detention Center · Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the Sixth Circuit has recognized only one explicit exception to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are analogous to rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This exception applies to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id. at 938 n.3 (noting that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective-intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs claims by pretrial detainees may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need brought by a pretrial detainee).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Kingsley to excessive-force claims and continued to apply the same subjective deliberate-indifference standard to pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners in basic-needs and safety claims.
Moody v. Williams · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · filed
However, we recently stated that Kingsley “is not squarely on point with and does not actually abrogate or directly conflict with” precedent outside of the context of an excessive-force claim.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Tenth Circuit confined Kingsley’s objective standard to excessive-force claims and held that the circuit’s refusal to extend it to medical deliberate-indifference claims also governs failure-to-protect claims arising from jailhouse violence.
Hooks v. Atoki · Tenth Circuit · filed
Although our opinion in Strain addressed a claim of medical indifference, every aspect of its reasoning applies more broadly, to Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference claims, including those based on a failure to prevent jailhouse violence. First, the panel in Strain noted that the Supreme Court’s Kingsley decision addressed only excessive force claims.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley beyond excessive force to a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim and retained the subjective deliberate-indifference standard.
Hodges v. Massey · Western District of North Carolina · filed
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the test for excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment differs from the test for excessive force claims brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. Some circuits have held, in light of Kingsley, that an objective reasonableness standard should apply in custodial contexts besides excessive force, including medical claims. See, e.g., Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019) (extending the objective standard to conditions of confinement cases); Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (extending objective standard to conditions of confinement cases); Castro v. City of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2016 (en banc) (extending the objective standard to failure to protect claims). The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See, e.g., Duff v. Potter, 665 F. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). However, the case law applying the deliberate indifference standard to such claims has not been overruled, and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so. See, e.g., Shover v. Chestnut, 798 F. App'x 760, 761–62 (4th Cir. 2020) (applying the deliberate indifference standard to a pretrial detainee’s claim regarding a serious medical need without discussing Kingsley).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Kingsley to excessive force and retained the analogous Eighth Amendment framework for a pretrial detainee's conditions-of-confinement claim.
Perry v. Clark · United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the Sixth Circuit has recognized only one explicit exception to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are analogous to rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This exception applies to excessive- force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id. at 938 n.3 (noting that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective-intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs claims by pretrial detainees may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need brought by a pretrial detainee).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limited Kingsley to excessive-force claims and applied the Eighth Amendment subjective standard to the pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim.
Couch v. Brooks · Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the only explicit exception in the Sixth Circuit to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are co-extensive with rights under the Fourteenth Amendment pertains to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. . a Id t 938 n.3 (recognizing that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs pretrial detainee claims may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a pretrial detainee claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need). Therefore, the Court Therefore, the Court will apply the Eighth Amendment standard to Plaintiff’s claims for deliberate indifference to his serious medical need.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley beyond excessive force to a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim and retained the subjective deliberate-indifference standard.
McCarthy v. Cardella · Western District of North Carolina · filed
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the test for excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees under the Fourteenth Amendment differs from the test for excessive force claims brought by convicted prisoners under the Eighth Amendment. Some circuits have held, in light of Kingsley, that an objective reasonableness standard should apply in custodial contexts besides excessive force, including medical claims. See, e.g., Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019) (extending the objective standard to conditions of confinement cases); Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (extending objective standard to conditions of confinement cases); Castro v. City of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2016 (en banc) (extending the objective standard to failure to protect claims). The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See, e.g., Duff v. Potter, 665 F. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). However, the case law applying the deliberate indifference standard to such claims has not been overruled and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so. See, e.g., Doe 4 by and through Lopez v. Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Ctr. Comm’n, 985 F.3d 327, 340 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting, in a different context, that the deliberate indifference standard applies to pretrial detainees’ claims on inadequate medical care); Shover v. Chestnut, 798 F. App’x 760, 761–62 (4th Cir. 2020) (applying the deliberate indifference standard to a pretrial detainee’s claim regarding a serious medical United States Bureau of Prisons, 849 F.3d 202, 210 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 241 (4th Cir. 2008)). A “serious medical need” is “one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” Iko, 535 F.3d at 241 (internal quotation marks omitted). To constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, “the treatment [a prisoner receives] must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness.” Miltier v. Beorn, 896 F.2d 848, 851 (4th Cir. 1990), overruled on other grounds by Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 825 (1994). The Plaintiff asserts his medical deliberate indifference claim against Sheriff Cathey only. There is no allegation that Defendant Cathey was personally involved in the Plaintiff’s medical care at the Jail. As such, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment to the extent that the Plaintiff asserts any deliberate indifference claim against Defendant Cathey in his individual capacity. See Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985) (for personal liability, “it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.”). Further, the Plaintiff need without discussing Kingsley); Krell v. Braightmeyer, 2020 WL 5640407 (4th Cir. Sept. 22, 2020) (same).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Limited Kingsley to excessive-force claims and analyzed pretrial-detainee deliberate-indifference claims under the same subjective rubric as Eighth Amendment claims.
McGee v. Suciu · Southern District of Ohio · filed
Further, Eighth Amendment rights are generally co-extensive with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Richmond v. Huq, 885 F.3d 928, 938 n.3 (6th Cir. 2018) (recognizing that Kingsley abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a pretrial detainee claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need). Accordingly, Eighth Amendment prisoner claims and Fourteenth Amendment pretrial detainee claims are analyzed “under the same rubric.” Id. (quoting Villegas v. Metro Gov’t of Nashville, 709 F.3d 563, 568 (6th Cir. 2013)).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Held that Kingsley did not extend to medical-treatment claims and therefore did not displace the circuit’s subjective deliberate-indifference precedent.
Cope v. Cogdill · Fifth Circuit · filed
Cope argues that the Supreme Court announced an objective standard for pretrial detainees and that the standard of reasonableness employed here should be objective, not subjective. She relies on Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015). But Kingsley did not address claims regarding medical treatment. Rather, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs alleging excessive force must show that the force was objectively excessive. Id. at 396–97. Since Kingsley discussed a different type of constitutional claim, it did not abrogate our deliberate-indifference precedent. Thus, Cope must prove subjective knowledge.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Kingsley to excessive force and retained the subjective deliberate-indifference standard for the pretrial detainee's conditions-of-confinement claim.
Gonzalez v. Warren County Regional Jail · United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the only explicit exception in the Sixth Circuit to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are co-extensive with rights under the Fourteenth Amendment pertains to excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. See, e.g., Richmond v. Huq, 885 F. at 938 n.3 (recognizing that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims and that the standard which governs pretrial detainee claims may be shifting, but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a pretrial detainee claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need)
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley to the pretrial detainee’s conditions claims and applied the Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard.
Higgs v. Thorpe · Western District of Kentucky · filed
At this time, the Sixth Circuit has recognized only one explicit exception to the general rule that rights under the Eighth Amendment are analogous to rights under the Fourteenth Amendment - in the context of excessive-force claims brought by pretrial detainees. Id. at 938 n.3 (noting that Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015), abrogated the subjective intent requirement for Fourteenth Amendment excessive-force claims but declining to apply the Kingsley standard to a claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need brought by a pretrial detainee); see also Griffith v. Franklin Cty., 975 F.3d 554 (6th Cir. 2020) (declining to reach the issue); Cameron v. Bouchard, 815 F. App’x 978, 984-85 (6th Cir. 2020) (declining to decide whether Kingsley controlled jail detainees’ challenge to COVID-19 precautions and holding that, at a minimum, a violation of due process required more than simple negligence). Therefore, the Court will apply the Eighth Amendment’s deliberate indifference standard to Plaintiff’s claims regarding his placement in segregation and sack lunches.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Kingsley’s objective standard beyond excessive force to the detainee’s medical-care and failure-to-protect deliberate-indifference claims, instead applying the existing subjective deliberate-indifference standard.
Schulz v. Union County Jail · Western District of North Carolina · filed
The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See e.g. Duff v. Potter, 665 Fed. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). The Court will apply the deliberate indifference standard in this case, as the relevant Fourth Circuit case law has not been overruled and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley beyond excessive force to a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim and applied the subjective deliberate-indifference standard.
Davis v. McFadden · Western District of North Carolina · filed
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the United States Supreme Court held that, to state an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must only show that the force “purposefully and knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable” because, although prisoners may not be punished cruelly or unusually, pretrial detainees may not be punished at all. 576 U.S. 389 (2015). Some circuits have held, in light of Kingsley, that an objective reasonableness standard should apply in custodial contexts beyond excessive force. See e.g., Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019) (extending the objective standard to conditions of confinement cases): Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (same); Castro v. City of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (extending the objective reasonableness standard to failure to protect claims). The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See e.g. Duff v. Potter, 665 Fed. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). The Court will apply the deliberate indifference standard in this case, as the relevant Fourth Circuit case law has not been overruled and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so. See e.g., Shover v. Chestnut, 798 Fed. App’x 760, 761-62 (4th Cir. 2020) (applying the deliberate indifference standard to a pretrial detainee’s medical claim without discussing Kingsley).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley beyond excessive force to a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim and applied the subjective deliberate-indifference standard.
Anderson v. Vickery · Western District of North Carolina · filed
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the United States Supreme Court held that, to state an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must only show that the force “purposefully and knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable” because, although prisoners may not be punished cruelly or unusually, pretrial detainees may not be punished at all. 576 U.S. 389 (2015). Some circuits have held, in light of Kingsley, that an objective reasonableness standard should apply in custodial contexts beyond excessive force. See e.g., Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019) (extending the objective standard to conditions of confinement cases); Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (same); Castro v. City of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (extending the objective reasonableness standard to failure to protect claims). The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See e.g. Duff v. Potter, 665 Fed. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). The Court will apply the deliberate indifference standard in this case, as the relevant Fourth Circuit case law has not been overruled and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so. See e.g., Shover v. Chestnut, 798 Fed. App’x 760, 761-62 (4th Cir. 2020) (applying the deliberate indifference standard to a pretrial detainee’s medical claim without discussing Kingsley).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Declined to extend Kingsley beyond excessive force to a pretrial detainee’s medical-care claim and applied the subjective deliberate-indifference standard.
Scott v. Harven A. Crouse Detention Center · Western District of North Carolina · filed
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, the United States Supreme Court held that, to state an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must only show that the force “purposefully and knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable” because, although prisoners may not be punished cruelly or unusually, pretrial detainees may not be punished at all. 576 U.S. 389 (2015). Some circuits have held, in light of Kingsley, that an objective reasonableness standard should apply in custodial contexts beyond excessive force. See e.g., Hardeman v. Curran, 933 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2019) (extending the objective standard to conditions of confinement cases): Darnell v. Pineiro, 849 F.3d 17, 35 (2d Cir. 2017) (same); Castro v. City of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1069-70 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (extending the objective reasonableness standard to failure to protect claims). The Fourth Circuit has not yet addressed this question. See e.g. Duff v. Potter, 665 Fed. App’x 242, 244-45 (4th Cir. 2016) (applying the Kingsley standard to a detainee’s excessive force claim but declining to disturb the district court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need for procedural reasons). The Court will apply the deliberate indifference standard in this case, as the relevant Fourth Circuit case law has not been overruled and the Fourth Circuit has not expressed any intention to do so. See e.g., Shover v. Chestnut, 798 Fed. App’x 760, 761-62 (4th Cir. 2020) (applying the deliberate indifference standard to a pretrial detainee’s medical claim without discussing Kingsley).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
Held that Kingsley did not extend to a pretrial detainee’s failure-to-protect claim and retained the circuit’s subjective-knowledge standard.
Edmiston v. Borrego · Fifth Circuit · filed
Plaintiffs, however, maintain this court should instead apply the objective-unreasonableness standard the Court adopted in Kingsley v. Hendrickson for claims of excessive force (not failure to protect) by officers against a pretrial detainee. 576 U.S. 389 (2015). But, we are bound by our rule of orderliness. E.g., Def. Distrib. v. Platkin, 55 F.4th 486, 495 n.10 (5th Cir. 2022) (“The rule of orderliness means that one panel of our court may not overturn another panel’s decision, absent an intervening change in law, such as by statutory amendment, or the Supreme Court, or our en banc court.” (citation omitted)). This rule renders this objective-unreasonableness assertion meritless. See Cope, 3 F.4th at 207 n.7 (explaining Kingsley “did not abrogate [this court’s] deliberate-indifference precedent”); Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 419 n.4 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Because the Fifth Circuit has continued to rely on Hare and to apply a subjective standard post-Kingsley, this panel is bound by our rule of orderliness.”).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Fifth Circuit held that Kingsley did not abrogate its subjective deliberate-indifference precedent and refused to extend Kingsley beyond excessive force.
Crandel v. Hastings · Fifth Circuit · filed
This rule renders this assertion meritless. See Cope v. Cogdill, 3 F.4th 198, 207 n.7 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining Kingsley “did not abrogate [this court’s] deliberate-indifference precedent”), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2573 (2022); Alderson v. Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 419 n.4 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Because the Fifth Circuit has continued to rely on Hare and to apply a subjective standard post-Kingsley, this panel is bound by our rule of orderliness.”).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court confined Kingsley to excessive-force claims and retained Eleventh Circuit deliberate-indifference precedent for the medical-care claim.
Clay v. Dillman · United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida · filed
However, the Eleventh Circuit recently determined, “Kingsley is not squarely on point with and does not actually abrogate or directly conflict with precedent outside of the context of an excessive[ ]force claim.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Kingsley v. Hendrickson and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace