Schwartz v. Gentempo: Arbitrary Force on Pretrial Detainees Clearly Unlawful Under the Fourteenth Amendment

1. Introduction

In Schwartz v. Gentempo, 10th Cir. No. 23-1393 (May 30, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confronted the question whether a deputy sheriff’s unprovoked physical assault on a shackled pretrial detainee violated clearly established constitutional rights, thereby defeating the deputy’s claim of qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Background:

Plaintiff: Melissa R. Schwartz, personal representative for the Estate of Serafin Finn.
Defendant: Deputy Jason Gentempo, Denver Sheriff’s Department (individual capacity).
Factual Setting: Finn, restrained on a gurney and later in a wheelchair at Denver Health Medical Center, spat on the ground and at Deputy Gentempo. Gentempo responded by punching Finn twice in the face, slamming the wheelchair backward, and applying a mandibular angle pressure hold.
Procedural Posture: Finn died of unrelated causes; the Estate sued for excessive force under § 1983. The district court denied qualified immunity at summary judgment. On appeal the issue narrowed to whether the unlawfulness of Gentempo’s conduct was “clearly established.”

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. It held:

Gentempo’s unprovoked use of force against a pretrial detainee—punching him and flipping his wheelchair onto pavement—was arbitrary and punitive, not related to any legitimate governmental objective (such as preventing escape or harm).
Such conduct violated Finn’s Fourteenth Amendment due process right against punishment before adjudication of guilt.
The unlawfulness of using arbitrary force on a pretrial detainee was “so obvious under general, well-established constitutional principles” that any reasonable officer would have known it was unconstitutional.
Accordingly, Gentempo was not entitled to qualified immunity, and the denial of summary judgment was affirmed.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The Court relied on a line of Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit decisions defining the limits of force against pretrial detainees and the contours of qualified immunity:

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979): A pretrial detainee may not be punished prior to adjudication; any condition not “rationally related to a legitimate nonpunitive purpose” is punitive.
Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576 (1984): To determine punishment, the court looks at whether a restriction is arbitrary or purposeless.
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015): Clarifies that a pretrial detainee need show only that force was not reasonably related to a legitimate objective, not necessarily subjective intent to punish.
Colbruno v. Kessler, 928 F.3d 1155 (10th Cir. 2019): Reiterates the “bright-line rule” that arbitrary force on a detainee is unconstitutional even absent factually identical precedent.
Blackmon v. Sutton, 734 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2013): Similar bright-line statement barring arbitrary force on detainees.
Shepherd v. Robbins, 55 F.4th 810 (10th Cir. 2022): Standard for reviewing qualified immunity on summary judgment.
Apodaca v. Raemisch, 864 F.3d 1071 (10th Cir. 2017): Requirement that constitutional rights be “clearly established” by controlling precedent.
Rosales v. Bradshaw, 72 F.4th 1145 (10th Cir. 2023): Explains that some rights are so obviously unlawful that no factually identical precedent is needed.
Truman v. Orem City, 1 F.4th 1227 (10th Cir. 2021), and Taylor v. Riojas, 592 U.S. 7 (2020): Affirm the “obvious unlawfulness” exception to requiring a case on all fours.
Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7 (2015), and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011): Caution against overbroad, high-level definitions of established law.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in two steps, reflecting the qualified immunity framework:

Constitutional Violation: Applying Bell and its progeny, the Court concluded that punching and flipping a shackled detainee’s wheelchair served no legitimate government purpose (such as security or medical care) and thus was punitive. Pretrial detainees are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from punishment before conviction.
Clearly Established Right: The right not to be subjected to arbitrary or punitive force was “beyond debate” and so well grounded in Bell, Block, Colbruno, and Blackmon that any reasonable officer would know it. Because Gentempo did not contest the district court’s factual findings, he could not argue lack of fair warning.

The Court stressed that when arbitrary force on a pretrial detainee is undisputed, the “bright-line” rule itself is sufficient to defeat qualified immunity without requiring a factually identical prior opinion.

3.3 Impact

This decision carries significant implications:

It reinforces the bright-line prohibition on punitive force against pretrial detainees, solidifying the principle that “no reasonable officer” could believe such conduct lawful.
It signals to lower courts that once the punitive nature of force is undisputed, qualified immunity must yield, streamlining § 1983 litigation and reducing fact-intensive immunity disputes.
It guides law enforcement training and policy, underscoring that any nonconsensual, non-security-based striking of shackled detainees is unconstitutional.
It may influence other circuits to adopt a similar approach in contexts where constitutional violations are “obvious” under general principles.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Pretrial Detainee: A person held in custody before trial; enjoys due process rights, including freedom from punishment before conviction.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim: A lawsuit against state actors for deprivation of federal constitutional rights under color of law.
Qualified Immunity: A legal doctrine shielding government officials from personal liability unless they violate a “clearly established” right that a reasonable official would know.
Clearly Established Right: A right is “clearly established” when controlling precedent (Supreme Court or applicable circuit) makes the unlawfulness of conduct obvious.
Summary Judgment: A procedural device disposing of cases where there is no genuine dispute of material fact, allowing resolution as a matter of law.
Mandibular Angle Pressure Point Hold: A law enforcement technique applying pressure behind the jaw to gain compliance; here, used after the unprovoked punches.
Punitive vs. Legitimate Governmental Objective: Force is punitive (unlawful) if not reasonably related to security, medical care, or other legitimate government interests.

5. Conclusion

Schwartz v. Gentempo reaffirms the fundamental principle that pretrial detainees cannot be punished before adjudication. The Tenth Circuit’s decision underscores that any arbitrary or punitive use of force—particularly when unprovoked and unrelated to security—violates the Fourteenth Amendment, and that this principle is so well established that qualified immunity cannot shield officers who engage in such conduct. This ruling will guide future § 1983 litigation, law enforcement practices, and reinforce detainees’ constitutional protections nationwide.