kingsley
hendrickson
et
argued
decided
june
kingsley
hendrickson
et
al
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
argued
april
decided
june
petitioner
kingsley
awaiting
trial
county
jail
officers
forcibly
removed
cell
refused
comply
instructions
kingsley
filed
complaint
federal
district
claiming
relevant
two
officers
used
excessive
force
violation
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
trial
conclusion
district
instructed
jury
kingsley
required
prove
inter
alia
officers
recklessly
disregarded
kingsley
safety
acted
reckless
disregard
rights
jury
found
officers
favor
appeal
kingsley
argued
jury
instruction
adhere
proper
standard
judging
pretrial
detainee
excessive
force
claim
namely
objective
unreasonableness
seventh
circuit
disagreed
holding
law
required
subjective
inquiry
officers
state
mind
whether
officers
actually
intended
violate
recklessly
disregarded
kingsley
rights
held
pretrial
detainee
must
show
force
purposely
knowingly
used
objectively
unreasonable
prevail
excessive
force
claim
pp
determination
must
made
perspective
reasonable
officer
scene
including
officer
knew
time
see
graham
connor
must
account
legitimate
interests
stemming
government
need
manage
facility
individual
detained
appropriately
deferring
policies
practices
th
judgment
jail
officials
needed
preserve
internal
order
discipline
maintain
institutional
security
bell
wolfish
pp
several
considerations
lead
conclusion
objective
standard
consistent
precedent
bell
instance
held
pretrial
detainee
prevail
claim
due
process
rights
violated
providing
objective
evidence
challenged
governmental
action
rationally
related
legitimate
governmental
objective
excessive
relation
purpose
cf
block
rutherford
experience
also
suggests
objective
standard
workable
consistent
pattern
jury
instructions
used
several
circuits
many
facilities
train
officers
interact
detainees
officers
conduct
subject
objective
reasonableness
finally
use
objective
standard
adequately
protects
officer
acts
good
faith
acknowledging
judging
reasonableness
force
used
perspective
knowledge
defendant
officer
appropriate
part
analysis
pp
none
cases
respondents
point
provides
significant
support
subjective
standard
whitley
albers
hudson
mcmillian
lack
relevance
context
involved
claims
brought
convicted
prisoners
eighth
amendment
cruel
unusual
punishment
clause
claims
brought
pretrial
detainees
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
county
sacramento
lewis
statement
indicating
need
show
purpose
cause
harm
due
process
liability
refers
whether
force
intentionally
used
excessive
whether
defendant
intended
commit
acts
question
finally
johnson
glick
factor
suggested
necessary
condition
liability
factor
among
others
might
help
show
use
force
excessive
pp
applying
proper
standard
jury
instruction
erroneous
taken
together
features
instruction
suggested
jury
weigh
respondents
subjective
reasons
using
force
subjective
views
excessiveness
force
respondents
claim
irrespective
holding
error
instruction
harmless
left
seventh
circuit
resolve
remand
pp
vacated
remanded
breyer
delivered
opinion
kennedy
ginsburg
sotomayor
kagan
joined
scalia
filed
dissenting
opinion
roberts
thomas
joined
alito
filed
dissenting
opinion
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
michael
kingsley
petitioner
stan
hendrickson
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
june
justice
breyer
delivered
opinion
case
individual
detained
jail
prior
trial
brought
claim
rev
stat
several
jail
officers
alleging
used
excessive
force
violation
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
officers
concede
intended
use
force
used
parties
disagree
whether
force
used
excessive
question
us
whether
prove
excessive
force
claim
pretrial
detainee
must
show
officers
subjectively
aware
use
force
unreasonable
officers
use
force
objectively
unreasonable
conclude
latter
standard
correct
one
facts
undisputed
michael
kingsley
petitioner
arrested
drug
charge
detained
wisconsin
county
jail
prior
trial
evening
may
officer
performing
cell
check
noticed
piece
paper
covering
light
fixture
kingsley
bed
officer
told
kingsley
remove
kingsley
refused
subsequently
officers
told
kingsley
remove
paper
time
kingsley
refused
next
morning
jail
administrator
lieutenant
robert
conroy
ordered
kingsley
remove
paper
kingsley
refused
conroy
told
kingsley
officers
remove
paper
moved
receiving
cell
interim
shortly
thereafter
four
officers
including
respondents
sergeant
stan
hendrickson
deputy
sheriff
fritz
degner
approached
cell
ordered
kingsley
stand
back
door
keep
hands
behind
kingsley
refused
comply
officers
handcuffed
forcibly
removed
cell
carried
receiving
cell
placed
face
bunk
hands
handcuffed
behind
back
parties
views
happened
next
differ
officers
testified
kingsley
resisted
efforts
remove
handcuffs
kingsley
testified
resist
agree
sergeant
hendrickson
placed
knee
kingsley
back
kingsley
told
impolite
language
get
kingsley
testified
hendrickson
degner
slammed
head
concrete
bunk
allegation
officers
deny
parties
agree
however
happened
next
hendrickson
directed
degner
stun
kingsley
taser
degner
applied
taser
kingsley
back
approximately
five
seconds
officers
left
handcuffed
kingsley
alone
receiving
cell
officers
returned
cell
minutes
later
removed
kingsley
handcuffs
based
related
events
kingsley
filed
complaint
federal
district
claiming
among
things
hendrickson
degner
used
excessive
force
violation
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
officers
moved
summary
judgment
district
denied
stating
reasonable
jury
conclude
officers
acted
malice
intended
harm
kingsley
used
force
kingsley
josvai
wd
app
pet
cert
kingsley
excessive
force
claim
accordingly
proceeded
trial
conclusion
trial
district
instructed
jury
follows
excessive
force
means
force
applied
recklessly
unreasonable
light
facts
circumstances
time
thus
succeed
claim
excessive
use
force
plaintiff
must
prove
following
factors
preponderance
evidence
defendants
used
force
plaintiff
defendants
use
force
unreasonable
light
facts
circumstances
time
defendants
knew
using
force
presented
risk
harm
plaintiff
recklessly
disregarded
plaintiff
safety
failing
take
reasonable
measures
minimize
risk
harm
plaintiff
defendants
conduct
caused
harm
plaintiff
deciding
whether
one
defendants
used
force
plaintiff
must
consider
whether
unreasonable
perspective
reasonable
officer
facing
circumstances
defendants
faced
must
make
decision
based
defendants
knew
time
incident
based
know
also
deciding
whether
one
defendants
used
unreasonable
force
acted
reckless
disregard
plaintiff
rights
may
consider
factors
need
use
force
relationship
need
use
force
amount
force
used
extent
plaintiff
injury
whether
defendants
reasonably
believed
threat
safety
staff
prisoners
efforts
made
defendants
limit
amount
force
used
app
emphasis
added
jury
found
officers
favor
appeal
kingsley
argued
correct
standard
judging
pretrial
detainee
excessive
force
claim
objective
unreasonableness
jury
instruction
said
hew
standard
panel
appeals
disagreed
one
judge
dissenting
majority
held
law
required
subjective
inquiry
officer
state
mind
must
actual
intent
violate
plaintiff
rights
reckless
disregard
rights
quoting
wilson
williams
dissent
used
instructions
promulgated
committee
pattern
civil
jury
instructions
seventh
circuit
require
pretrial
detainee
claiming
excessive
force
show
use
force
objectively
unreasonable
opinion
hamilton
see
pattern
civ
jury
instr
dissent
stated
district
use
word
reckless
jury
instruction
added
unnecessary
confusing
element
kingsley
filed
petition
certiorari
asking
us
determine
whether
requirements
excessive
force
claim
brought
pretrial
detainee
must
satisfy
subjective
standard
objective
standard
light
disagreement
among
circuits
agreed
compare
murray
johnson
fed
appx
bozeman
orum
per
curiam
aldini
johnson
young
wolfe
fed
appx
ii
consider
legally
requisite
state
mind
case
like
one
sense
two
separate
questions
first
concerns
defendant
state
mind
respect
physical
acts
state
mind
respect
bringing
certain
physical
consequences
world
second
question
concerns
defendant
state
mind
respect
whether
use
force
excessive
first
question
dispute
second
whether
interpret
defendant
physical
acts
world
involving
force
excessive
dispute
conclude
respect
question
relevant
standard
objective
subjective
thus
defendant
state
mind
matter
plaintiff
required
prove
consider
series
physical
events
take
place
world
series
events
might
consist
example
swing
fist
hits
face
push
leads
fall
shot
taser
leads
stunning
recipient
one
denies
must
assume
series
events
taken
place
world
defendant
must
possess
purposeful
knowing
possibly
reckless
state
mind
stated
liability
negligently
inflicted
harm
categorically
beneath
threshold
constitutional
due
process
county
sacramento
lewis
emphasis
added
see
also
daniels
williams
historically
guarantee
due
process
applied
deliberate
decisions
government
officials
deprive
person
life
liberty
property
thus
officer
taser
goes
accident
officer
unintentionally
trips
falls
detainee
causing
harm
pretrial
detainee
prevail
excessive
force
claim
use
force
deliberate
purposeful
knowing
pretrial
detainee
claim
may
proceed
context
police
pursuit
suspect
noted
though
without
holding
recklessness
cases
might
suffice
standard
imposing
liability
see
lewis
supra
whether
standard
might
suffice
liability
case
alleged
mistreatment
pretrial
detainee
need
decided
officers
dispute
acted
purposefully
knowingly
respect
force
used
kingsley
consider
question
us
defendant
state
mind
respect
proper
interpretation
force
series
events
world
defendant
deliberately
accidentally
negligently
used
deciding
whether
force
deliberately
used
constitutionally
speaking
excessive
courts
use
objective
standard
instead
subjective
standard
takes
account
defendant
state
mind
respect
question
hold
courts
must
use
objective
standard
short
agree
dissenting
appeals
judge
seventh
circuit
jury
instruction
committee
kingsley
pretrial
detainee
must
show
force
purposely
knowingly
used
objectively
unreasonable
judge
jury
apply
standard
mechanically
see
lewis
supra
rather
objective
reasonableness
turns
facts
circumstances
particular
case
graham
connor
must
make
determination
perspective
reasonable
officer
scene
including
officer
knew
time
vision
hindsight
see
ibid
must
also
account
legitimate
interests
stem
government
need
manage
facility
individual
detained
appropriately
deferring
policies
practices
th
judgment
jail
officials
needed
preserve
internal
order
discipline
maintain
institutional
security
bell
wolfish
considerations
following
may
bear
reasonableness
unreasonableness
force
used
relationship
need
use
force
amount
force
used
extent
plaintiff
injury
effort
made
officer
temper
limit
amount
force
severity
security
problem
issue
threat
reasonably
perceived
officer
whether
plaintiff
actively
resisting
see
graham
supra
consider
list
exclusive
mention
factors
illustrate
types
objective
circumstances
potentially
relevant
determination
excessive
force
several
considerations
led
us
conclude
appropriate
standard
pretrial
detainee
excessive
force
claim
solely
objective
one
one
thing
consistent
precedent
said
due
process
clause
protects
pretrial
detainee
use
excessive
force
amounts
punishment
graham
supra
bell
explained
punishment
consist
actions
taken
expressed
intent
punish
bell
went
explain
absence
expressed
intent
punish
pretrial
detainee
nevertheless
prevail
showing
actions
rationally
related
legitimate
nonpunitive
governmental
purpose
actions
appear
excessive
relation
purpose
bell
applied
latter
objective
standard
evaluate
variety
prison
conditions
including
prison
practice
consider
prison
officials
subjective
beliefs
policy
rather
examined
objective
evidence
size
rooms
available
amenities
concluding
conditions
reasonably
related
legitimate
purpose
holding
detainees
trial
appear
excessive
relation
purpose
ibid
bell
focus
punishment
mean
proof
intent
motive
punish
required
pretrial
detainee
prevail
claim
due
process
rights
violated
rather
bell
shows
later
precedent
affirms
pretrial
detainee
prevail
providing
objective
evidence
challenged
governmental
action
rationally
related
legitimate
governmental
objective
excessive
relation
purpose
cf
block
rutherford
suggestion
purpose
jail
policy
denying
contact
visitation
punish
inmates
need
evaluate
whether
policy
reasonably
related
legitimate
governmental
objectives
whether
appears
excessive
relation
objective
schall
martin
similar
see
also
salerno
distinction
turns
alternative
purpose
restriction
may
rationally
connected
assignable
whether
appears
excessive
relation
alternative
purpose
assigned
quoting
schall
supra
emphasis
added
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
suggest
cases
either
words
analysis
application
bell
objective
standard
involve
subjective
considerations
standard
also
consistent
use
objective
excessive
force
standard
officers
apply
force
person
like
kingsley
accused
convicted
crime
unlike
kingsley
free
bail
see
graham
supra
another
thing
experience
suggests
objective
standard
workable
consistent
pattern
jury
instructions
used
several
circuits
also
told
many
facilities
including
facility
issue
train
officers
interact
detainees
officers
conduct
subject
objective
reasonableness
standard
see
brief
petitioner
app
brief
former
corrections
administrators
experts
amici
curiae
finally
use
objective
standard
adequately
protects
officer
acts
good
faith
recognize
unning
prison
inordinately
difficult
undertaking
turner
safley
safety
order
institutions
requires
expertise
correctional
officials
must
substantial
discretion
devise
reasonable
solutions
problems
face
florence
board
chosen
freeholders
county
burlington
slip
officers
facing
disturbances
often
forced
make
judgments
circumstances
tense
uncertain
rapidly
evolving
graham
reasons
stressed
must
judge
reasonableness
force
used
perspective
knowledge
defendant
officer
also
explained
must
take
account
legitimate
interests
managing
jail
acknowledging
part
objective
reasonableness
analysis
deference
policies
practices
needed
maintain
order
institutional
security
appropriate
see
part
supra
limited
liability
excessive
force
situations
use
force
result
intentional
knowing
act
though
leave
open
possibility
including
reckless
act
well
ibid
additionally
officer
enjoys
qualified
immunity
liable
excessive
force
unless
violated
clearly
established
right
clear
reasonable
officer
conduct
unlawful
situation
confronted
saucier
katz
see
also
brief
amicus
curiae
unlikely
though
theoretically
possible
plaintiff
overcome
hurdles
officer
acted
good
faith
respondents
believe
relevant
legal
standard
subjective
plaintiff
must
prove
use
force
applied
effort
maintain
restore
discipline
rather
applied
maliciously
sadistically
cause
harm
brief
respondents
refer
several
cases
believe
support
position
see
citing
whitley
albers
hudson
mcmillian
lewis
johnson
glick
first
two
cases
however
concern
excessive
force
claims
brought
convicted
prisoners
eighth
amendment
cruel
unusual
punishment
clause
claims
brought
pretrial
detainees
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
whitley
supra
hudson
supra
language
two
clauses
differs
nature
claims
often
differs
importantly
pretrial
detainees
unlike
convicted
prisoners
punished
much
less
maliciously
sadistically
ingraham
wright
graham
supra
see
also
blackstone
commentaries
offence
bailable
party
find
bail
committed
county
jail
ut
safe
custody
punishment
thus
need
might
eighth
amendment
case
determine
punishment
unconstitutional
whitley
hudson
relevant
insofar
address
practical
importance
taking
account
legitimate
concerns
run
jails
explained
believe
done
lewis
prove
respondents
point
either
considered
claim
police
officer
violated
due
process
causing
death
automobile
chase
aimed
apprehending
suspect
wrote
ust
purpose
cause
harm
needed
eighth
amendment
liability
prison
riot
case
needed
due
process
liability
pursuit
case
respondents
contend
statement
shows
embraced
standard
due
process
claims
requires
showing
subjective
intent
brief
respondents
portions
lewis
opinion
make
clear
however
statement
referred
defendant
intent
commit
acts
question
whether
force
intentionally
used
excessive
explained
parties
dispute
respondents
use
force
intentional
see
part
supra
glick
provide
respondents
significant
support
case
judge
friendly
writing
second
circuit
considered
excessive
force
claim
brought
pretrial
detainee
fourteenth
amendment
due
process
clause
judge
friendly
pointed
management
guards
large
numbers
prisoners
institution
may
require
justify
occasional
use
degree
intentional
force
added
determining
whether
intentional
use
force
crosse
constitutional
line
look
factors
need
application
force
relationship
need
amount
force
used
extent
injury
inflicted
whether
force
applied
good
faith
effort
maintain
restore
discipline
maliciously
sadistically
purpose
causing
harm
ibid
statement
suggest
fourth
factor
malicious
sadistic
purpose
cause
harm
necessary
condition
liability
contrary
words
make
clear
four
factors
provide
examples
considerations
among
others
might
help
show
use
force
excessive
respondents
believe
cases
nonetheless
help
make
broader
point
namely
subjective
standard
protects
relative
flood
claims
many
perhaps
unfounded
brought
pretrial
detainees
brief
respondents
note
prison
litigation
reform
act
designed
deter
filing
frivolous
litigation
prison
officials
applies
pretrial
detainees
convicted
prisoners
evidence
rash
unfounded
filings
circuits
use
objective
standard
acknowledge
view
objective
standard
appropriate
context
excessive
force
claims
brought
pretrial
detainees
pursuant
fourteenth
amendment
may
raise
questions
use
subjective
standard
context
excessive
force
claims
brought
convicted
prisoners
confronted
claim
however
need
address
issue
today
iii
consider
lawfulness
jury
instruction
given
case
light
adoption
objective
standard
pretrial
detainees
excessive
force
claims
see
part
supra
jury
instruction
defined
excessive
force
force
applied
recklessly
unreasonable
light
facts
circumstances
time
app
required
kingsley
show
officers
recklessly
disregarded
kingsley
safety
suggested
kingsley
must
show
defendants
acted
reckless
disregard
kingsley
rights
telling
jury
consider
several
objective
factors
making
determination
ibid
kingsley
argues
jury
instruction
faulty
word
reckless
suggests
need
prove
respondents
acted
certain
subjective
state
mind
respect
excessive
nonexcessive
nature
force
used
contrary
held
reply
brief
respondents
argue
irrespective
holding
error
instruction
harmless
brief
respondents
solicitor
general
suggests
instructions
defined
recklessness
reference
objective
factors
instructions
effectively
embody
objective
standard
confuse
jury
brief
amicus
curiae
agree
kingsley
instructions
erroneous
eckles
disregar
kingsley
safety
listed
additional
requirement
beyond
need
find
respondents
use
force
unreasonable
light
facts
circumstances
time
app
see
also
ibid
kingsley
show
respondents
used
unreasonable
force
acted
reckless
disregard
kingsley
rights
emphasis
added
determining
whether
respondents
acted
reckless
disregard
kingsley
rights
jury
instructed
consider
hether
respondents
reasonably
believed
threat
safety
staff
prisoners
ibid
emphasis
added
together
features
suggested
jury
weigh
respondents
subjective
reasons
using
force
subjective
views
excessiveness
force
held
error
question
whether
error
harmless
may
depend
part
detailed
specifics
case
leave
question
appeals
resolve
first
instance
decision
appeals
vacated
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
scalia
dissenting
michael
kingsley
petitioner
stan
hendrickson
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
june
justice
scalia
chief
justice
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
constitution
contains
freestanding
prohibition
excessive
force
however
four
constitutional
provisions
said
forbid
use
excessive
force
certain
circumstances
fourth
amendment
prohibits
makes
search
seizure
unreasonable
eighth
amendment
prohibits
constitutes
cruel
unusual
punishment
fifth
fourteenth
amendments
prohibit
matter
use
force
used
deprive
someone
life
liberty
property
without
due
process
law
fourteenth
amendment
case
fifth
amendment
applies
federal
actors
kingsley
forfeited
argument
fourth
amendment
failing
raise
acknowledges
eighth
amendment
standard
inapplicable
brief
petitioner
question
us
whether
pretrial
detainee
due
process
rights
violated
force
purposely
knowingly
used
objectively
unreasonable
ante
view
answer
cases
hold
intentional
infliction
punishment
upon
pretrial
detainee
may
violate
fourteenth
amendment
infliction
objectively
unreasonable
force
without
intentional
infliction
punishment
bell
wolfish
held
due
process
clause
forbids
holding
pretrial
detainees
conditions
amount
punishment
conditions
amount
punishment
explained
imposed
purpose
punishment
acting
intent
punish
means
taking
act
intended
chastise
deter
wilson
seiter
quoting
duckworth
franzen
see
also
bell
supra
bell
recognized
intent
punish
need
expressed
may
established
circumstantial
evidence
specifically
condition
confinement
challenged
reasonably
related
legitimate
goal
arbitrary
purposeless
permissibly
may
infer
purpose
governmental
action
punishment
endorsed
inference
applied
bell
test
challenges
brought
pretrial
detainees
jailhouse
security
policies
block
rutherford
statutes
permitting
pretrial
detention
schall
martin
salerno
light
cases
agree
due
process
clause
protects
pretrial
detainee
use
excessive
force
amounts
punishment
graham
connor
citing
bell
supra
disagree
however
intentional
application
force
objectively
unreasonable
degree
use
excessive
force
amount
punishment
bell
reaches
conclusion
misreading
bell
forbidding
take
harmful
action
pretrial
detainees
reasonably
related
legitimate
goal
bell
endorsed
reasonable
relation
inference
context
challenge
conditions
confinement
specifically
challenges
state
policy
housing
two
people
cell
various
security
policies
conditions
pretrial
detainees
held
security
policies
subject
result
considered
deliberation
authority
imposing
detention
conditions
policies
lack
reasonable
relationship
legitimate
nonpunitive
goal
logical
infer
punitive
intent
logic
supports
finding
punitive
intent
statutes
authorizing
detention
lacks
reasonable
relationship
valid
government
interest
schall
supra
salerno
supra
illogical
however
automatically
infer
punitive
intent
fact
prison
guard
used
force
pretrial
detainee
necessary
easily
result
misjudgment
degree
force
required
maintain
order
protect
inmates
rather
product
intent
punish
detainee
charged
crime
behavior
officer
decision
regarding
much
force
use
made
haste
pressure
frequently
without
luxury
second
chance
hudson
millian
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
considered
thought
precedes
determinations
like
issue
bell
block
schall
salerno
officer
used
force
necessary
might
evidence
acted
intent
punish
sum
bell
makes
intent
punish
focus
analysis
objective
reasonableness
force
used
nothing
heuristic
identifying
intent
heuristic
makes
good
sense
considered
decisions
detaining
authority
much
weaker
context
kingsley
argue
respondents
actually
intended
punish
reliance
bell
infer
intent
misplaced
kingsley
claims
protections
due
process
extend
beyond
narrow
context
brief
petitioner
unquestionably
state
plainly
violate
due
process
clause
extended
detainee
confinement
believed
mentally
ill
punishment
without
giving
constitutionally
guaranteed
processes
must
precede
deprivation
liberty
kingsley
claim
deprivation
liberty
normal
sense
word
right
walk
free
claims
due
process
clause
confers
pretrial
detainees
substantive
liberty
interest
consists
freedom
objectively
unreasonable
force
kingsley
seeks
relief
words
doctrine
substantive
due
process
occasionally
recognized
liberty
interests
freedom
incarceration
detention
limited
except
provisions
tailored
serve
compelling
state
interest
kerry
din
ante
plurality
opinion
quoting
reno
flores
even
one
believed
right
process
confer
right
substance
particular
cases
kingsley
interest
one
fundamental
liberty
interests
substantive
due
process
protects
said
doctrine
protects
liberty
interests
carefully
described
objectively
deeply
rooted
nation
history
tradition
implicit
concept
ordered
liberty
neither
liberty
justice
exist
sacrificed
washington
glucksberg
citations
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
carefully
described
liberty
interest
kingsley
asserts
right
pretrial
detainees
free
application
force
objectively
required
legitimate
nonpunitive
governmental
interest
argue
asserted
interest
pass
test
announced
glucksberg
conclude
emphasizing
constitution
source
american
law
immense
body
state
statutory
common
law
individuals
abused
state
officials
seek
relief
kingsley
addition
suing
respondents
excessive
force
brought
claim
assault
battery
due
process
clause
font
tort
law
superimposed
upon
state
system
daniels
williams
quoting
paul
davis
today
majority
overlooks
desire
tortify
fourteenth
amendment
alito
dissenting
michael
kingsley
petitioner
stan
hendrickson
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
seventh
circuit
june
justice
alito
dissenting
dismiss
case
improvidently
granted
deciding
pretrial
detainee
must
show
order
prevail
due
process
excessive
force
claim
decide
whether
pretrial
detainee
bring
fourth
amendment
claim
based
use
excessive
force
detention
facility
employee
yet
decided
question
see
graham
connor
pretrial
detainee
bring
claim
need
rely
substantive
due
process
see
albright
oliver
plurality
opinion
graham
settled
test
unreasonable
seizure
fourth
amendment
objective
see
pretrial
detainee
bring
claim
apparently
indistinguishable
substantive
due
process
claim
discusses
decide
due
process
issue
presented
case
availability
fourth
amendment
claim
settled
therefore
dismiss
case
improvidently
granted