Hale v. Boyle Cnty.

35 Citing cases

  1. Franklin v. Franklin Cnty.

    3:19-cv-00050-GFVT-CJS (E.D. Ky. Feb. 10, 2023)

    A constitutional claim for deliberate indifference requires a plaintiff to prove an objective and a subjective component. See Hale v. Boyle Cty., 18 F.4th 845, 852 (6th Cir. 2021).

  2. Edgell v. Miller

    1:23-cv-1012 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 26, 2024)

    Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subjected him to excessive force. Claims of excessive force asserted by individuals “in the criminal justice system” are analyzed pursuant to different constitutional provisions depending on the individual's status within that system. See, e.g., Hale v. Boyle County, 18 F.4th 845, 852 (6th Cir. 2021). Arrestee's claims are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment. Claims by pretrial detainees are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment and claims by convicted prisoners are assessed under the Eighth Amendment.

  3. Wolf v. Shavalier

    1:21-cv-904 (W.D. Mich. Sep. 26, 2023)

    Specifically, claims by arrestees, pretrial detainees, and convicted prisoners are analyzed under the Fourth, Fourteenth, and Eighth Amendments, respectively. See, e.g., Hale v. Boyle County, 18 F.4th 845, 852 (6th Cir. 2021).

  4. Koren v. Neil

    1:21-cv-9 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2022)   Cited 8 times

    Hale v. Boyle Cnty., 18 F.4th 845, 852 (6th Cir. 2021). For example, “[a]rrested persons bring § 1983 claims under the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable search and seizure.” Id.

  5. Gray v. Boose

    4:22-cv-10100 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 18, 2024)

    “Persons in the criminal justice system invoke different constitutional amendments in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits depending on their status.” Hale v. Boyle Cnty., 18 F.4th 845, 852 (6th Cir. 2021). Convicted persons bring § 1983 claims under the Eighth Amendment's protection from cruel and unusual punishment.

  6. Malbrough v. Holmes

    3:17-cv-283 (S.D. Tex. May. 22, 2023)

    Cf. Olivarez v. GEO Group, Inc., 844 F.3d 200, 205 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding in a § 1983 sexual-assault case that an inmate's recorded phone conversations suggesting a consensual sexual encounter with a prison employee were of substantial evidentiary value, because they went to the truth of the defendant employee's consent defense); Graham v. Sheriff of Logan Cnty., 741 F.3d 1118, 1124 (10th Cir. 2013) (holding that an Eighth Amendment excessive-force claim based on sexual abuse must involve “at least some form of coercion . . . by the prisoner's custodians”).Moreover, Holmes's guilty plea under Texas Penal Code § 39.04 does not necessarily aid Malbrough's § 1983 sexual-assault claims. See Hale v. Boyle Cnty., 18 F.4th 845, 853 n.5 (6th Cir. 2021) (holding that a prison guard's violation of a Kentucky statute criminalizing sex between guards and inmates did not establish “per-se nonconsent” or otherwise dictate the outcome of a § 1983 sexual-assault suit). For the same reason, Holmes's admitted violations of TDCJ policies do not establish Malbrough's non-consent.

  7. Shaffer v. Unknown Kindig

    1:22-cv-564 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 28, 2023)

    Claims of excessive force asserted by individuals “in the criminal justice system” are analyzed pursuant to different constitutional provisions depending on the individual's status within that system. See, e.g., Hale v. Boyle County, 18 F.4th 845, 852 (6th Cir. 2021). An arrestee's claims are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment; claims by pretrial detainees are analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment; and claims by convicted prisoners are assessed under the Eighth Amendment. Ibid.

  8. Hill v. Michigan

    No. 22-10631 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 7, 2022)   Cited 3 times

    The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects pretrial detainees like Hill from the use of excessive force. See Hale v. Boyle Cnty., 18 F.4th 845, 852 (6th Cir. 2021). “To prevail on an excessive force claim, a pretrial detainee must show ‘that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively

  9. Whyde v. Sigsworth

    No. 22-3581 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 2024)

    To prevail on an excessive-force claim, a pretrial detainee must show that an official used force "purposefully, knowingly, or ('possibly') recklessly" and that the force was "objectively unreasonable." Hale v. Boyle Cnty., 18 F.4th 845, 852 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting Kingsley, 576 U.S. at 396). "[O]bjective reasonableness turns on the 'facts and circumstances of each particular case.'"

  10. Richardson v. Duncan

    117 F.4th 1025 (8th Cir. 2024)

    Richardson's complaint makes no such allegation, so it is insufficient to state a claim. Cf. Hale v. Boyle County, 18 F.4th 845, 855 (6th Cir. 2021) (per curiam) (inmate asserted that court security officer provided "privileges and favors in exchange for sex"); Rafferty v. Trumbull County, 915 F.3d 1087, 1096 (6th Cir. 2019) (inmate alleged that she complied with sexual advances because corrections officer "intimidated" her); Wood v. Beauclair, 692 F.3d 1041, 1048 (9th Cir. 2012) ("Wood's statements and conduct demonstrate objective manifestations of his unwillingness to engage in any type of sexual act."). Richardson also relies on statements that she made in the evidentiary hearing convened by the magistrate judge under Rule 55(b).