Kingley v. Hendrickson

In section 1983 action alleging that defendants-jailers used excessive force against plaintiff-pretrial detainee when they tasered him as they moved him to different cell, Dist. Ct. did not err in using jury instruction that required jury to find that defendants knew that using force presented risk of harm to plaintiff, but recklessly disregarded plaintiff’s safety by failing to take reasonable measures to minimize risk of harm to plaintiff. Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause was source of plaintiff’s substantive rights as pre-trial detainee, as opposed to 8th Amendment, and that jury’s use of recklessness standard, which required examination of defendants’ intent, was appropriate. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that jury was required to find existence of defendants’ punishment of plaintiff on basis of wholly objective factors. (Dissent filed.)