Kingsley v. Hendrickson

Plaintiff-pretrial detainee was entitled to new trial in section 1983 action alleging that defendants-prison officials used excessive force in applying Taser to plaintiff while plaintiff was held in defendants’ facility. Dist. Ct. erred by instructing jury that plaintiff was required to establish subjective intent of defendants, since, under Kingsley, 135 SCt 2466, pretrial detainee must show only that force purposefully or knowingly used against plaintiff was objectively unreasonable, and that no showing of defendants' state of mind was required. Moreover, said error was not harmless, where jury could have held for defendants after concluding that defendants, while unreasonable in use of Taser, did not have reckless or malicious intent. Ct. further rejected defendants’ claim that they were entitled to qualified immunity, after noting that both before and after Kingsley decision standards for amount of force that could permissibly be used remained same.