Eighth Circuit Largely Restores Qualified Immunity to Minnesota Jail Guards in Use of Force on Bipolar Prisoner
by David M. Reutter
On December 26, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit largely reversed a lower court and restored qualified immunity (QI) to guards at Minnesota’s Washington County Jail (WCJ) in a prisoner’s claim that they either used excessive force against him or failed to intervene when it was used. Prisoners should take note that though Brandon Peterson suffered from documented bipolar disorder, the Court was quick to use his violence to justify a violent response from guards.
Peterson was 39 when held at WCJ in 2018 on an unadjudicated probation violation stemming from his sentence for a state disorderly conduct conviction. For that he had received a 90-day prison sentence, with 60 days suspended, plus one year of probation that was revocable if Peterson “fail[ed] to abide by the rules.” Thanks to his bipolar disorder, though, he didn’t abide by the rules, not before he was reincarcerated nor after; then he repeatedly covered the surveillance camera and set off sprinklers, flooding his cell. He pulled a brick from the wall and a steel grate from the floor, surrendering them only after repeated orders or shots of pepper-spray.
Unsurprisingly, his pro se civil rights complaint then made numerous claims that while he was at the jail, guards used excessive force or failed to intervene; he also claimed confinement conditions were unconstitutional. At the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Peterson picked up representation from attorneys with Jones Day in Minneapolis. That court then largely denied QI to multiple jail officials; however, it deferred making a definitive summary judgment ruling on state-law claims or those seeking to extend liability to the county under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit noted that there were 16 defendants involved “and a hodgepodge of constitutional and state law claims.” As a threshold matter, though, the Court first determined that Peterson was in the jail for violating probation handed down with his sentence for a criminal conviction—so his claims fell under the Eighth Amendment, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court then focused on six separate use-of-force incidents that Peterson’s complaint called excessive. The “core judicial inquiry,” the Court said, is whether force was applied “in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm,” as laid out in Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992). The Court said it was guided by “the need for application of force” and “the relationship between that need and the amount of force used.” As to the need, the Court tried to assess the threat “reasonably perceived by the responsible officials.” As to the relationship between that need and the force used, it also considered “any efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful response.”
Reviewing the district court’s order and the record, including the relevant video footage, the Court summarized each incident. Video showed Peterson being disruptive, throwing items, cursing and spitting at guards, and disobeying commands. In all but one incident, the Court found the application of physical force and pepper spray was limited to what was needed to gain Peterson’s compliance with lawful orders. It therefore reversed the district court’s denial of QI to guards in those five incidents.
In the sixth incident, on May 19, 2018, guard Sgt. Brandon Olsen used chemical spray on Peterson, claiming that the prisoner “refused to comply with orders to turn over items from his cell,” the Court recalled. However, because “Peterson says he was complying—albeit slowly,” the Court continued, “Peterson’s compliance was a genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment” by the district court. The Eighth Circuit found nothing to refute this, preserving that claim for trial.
The Court next took up Peterson’s claim that guards failed to intervene in these incidents. Since it had found the use of force reasonable in five of them, it reversed denial of summary judgment to Defendants on those claims. The district court had also concluded that Peterson suffers from an objectively serious medical need related to his bipolar disorder, an assessment not disturbed on appeal. However, the Eighth Circuit found the subjective prong of a deliberate indifference analysis was not satisfied; Peterson was not denied treatment but provided a course of treatment that he disagreed with. That was not sufficient to defeat Defendants’ QI, the Court said, reversing that part of the lower court’s ruling, too. See: Peterson v. Heinen, 89 F.4th 628 (8th Cir. 2023).
The case has returned to the district court for Peterson’s remaining claims to proceed against Sgt. Olsen and the county, as his employer. PLN will update developments as they are available. See: Peterson v. Washington Cty., USDC (D. Minn.), Case No. 0:18-cv-02640.
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Peterson v. Heinen
| Year | 2023 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 89 F.4th 628 (8th Cir. 2023) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Appeals Court Edition | F.4th |