# William Fletcher v. Marquardt

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · February 15, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4368591

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 15, 2019
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Prisoner
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4368591

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 15 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM FLETCHER, No. 17-35862

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
1:15-CV-00029-REB
v.

MARQUARDT, Ada County Sheriff MEMORANDUM*
Deputy

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Ronald Bush, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 7, 2019
Seattle, Washington

Before: IKUTA and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,** District
Judge

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**
The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, United States District Judge for
the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation.
1
Deputy Marquardt appeals the denial of summary judgment on the claim that

he used excessive force against Fletcher, a pretrial detainee in the Ada County jail.

Marquardt argues he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not use

excessive force and the law was not clearly established that his force was unlawful

under the circumstances. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

1. Marquardt argues he did not use excessive force in striking Fletcher

whom he contends was argumentative, noncompliant with instructions, and actively

resistant. A material dispute of fact exists regarding whether Marquardt gave

Fletcher instructions before striking him. Fletcher’s subjective complaints of pain

from the blows are also disputed. These disputes cannot be reconciled by simply

adopting Marquardt’s contentions. The district court did not err in finding the record

presented genuine issues of material fact on whether the force Marquardt

purposefully used against Fletcher was objectively unreasonable.

2. Marquardt argues there is no clearly established law that would inform

a reasonable deputy facing these specific facts that he could not employ the force

used to obtain compliance. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to

Fletcher, Fletcher was compliant and did not provoke Marquardt. The law is clearly

established that a reasonable correctional officer cannot administer strong blows

upon a compliant pretrial detainee without violating the detainee’s right under the

Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to be free from objectively

2
unreasonable force purposely used against him. Felix v. McCarthy, 939 F.2d 699,

701 (9th Cir. 1991). The district court did not err in denying Marquardt’s motion

for summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4368591. Public record. Not legal advice.