Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

980 chars

The same jury instructions were used for all five
appellees, and the parties do not distinguish among them on
appeal. After the trial in this case, the Supreme Court
clarified that “the appropriate standard for a pretrial
detainee’s excessive force claim [under the Fourteenth
Amendment] is solely an objective one.” Kingsley v.
Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466, 2473 (2015). In contrast, a
convicted prisoner’s excessive force claim under the Eighth
Amendment requires a subjective inquiry into “whether force
was applied in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore
discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.”
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 7 (1992). The jury
instructions for appellee Rodriguez’s Fourteenth Amendment
claim erroneously required him, as a pretrial detainee, to
prove both the objective unreasonableness of the appellants’
force (that “defendants used excessive and unnecessary force
                    RODRIGUEZ V. CRUZ                       17

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text