In 2015, the Supreme Court held inKingsley v. Hendricksonthat 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claims brought by pretrial detainees against state prison officials are measured by an objective reasonableness standard. Pretrial detainees bring § 1983 claims under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because they are detained but are not yet convicted. Thus, constitutional violations under § 1983 are viewed as an infringement of their due process rights. SinceKingsley, circuit courts have split on whether the objective reasonableness standard extends to other kinds of pretrial detainee claims. These claims include conditions of confinement, failure-to-protect, and inadequate medical care claims. Some circuits apply the objective reasonableness standard articulated by the Court inKingsleyto these additional claims. The objective standard requires that an official should have known of a risk to the pretrial detainee and did nothing to abate the risk. Other circuits, however, apply a subjective standard, also known as deliberate indifference. The subjective standard requires that the official actually knew of the risk to the pretrial detainee and did nothing to mitigate the risk. The practical consequence of the split is that a pretrial detainee will face drastically different standards depending on where the claim is brought. This Note argues that the Supreme Court should extend the objective standard to all pretrial detainee claims, not just those of excessive force. The objective standard is more consistent with the demands of the Fourteenth Amendment and Supreme Court precedent. Circuits that continue to apply the subjective deliberate indifference standard rely on circuit precedent that is inconsistent withKingsleyand conflicts with the guarantees of due process.

中文翻译：

---

金斯利诉亨德里克森案后的审前被拘留者和客观标准

2015 年，最高法院在 Kingsley 诉 Hendrickson 案中裁定，42 USC § 1983 审前被拘留者对州监狱官员提出的过度武力索赔是通过客观合理性标准来衡量的。审前被拘留者根据第十四修正案的正当程序条款提出 § 1983 索赔，因为他们被拘留但尚未被定罪。因此，第 1983 条规定的违宪行为被视为对其正当程序权利的侵犯。自金斯利以来，巡回法院就客观合理性标准是否延伸到其他类型的审前被拘留者主张存在分歧。这些索赔包括禁闭条件、未能保护和不充分的医疗保健索赔。一些巡回法院将法院在金斯利案中阐明的客观合理性标准应用于这些附加主张。客观标准要求官员应该知道审前在押人员面临的风险，并且没有采取任何措施来降低风险。然而，其他电路采用主观标准，也称为故意冷漠。主观标准要求官员确实知道审前在押人员面临的风险，并且没有采取任何措施来降低风险。分裂的实际后果是，审前被拘留者将面临截然不同的标准，具体取决于提出索赔的地点。本说明认为，最高法院应将客观标准扩展到所有审前被拘留者的诉求，而不仅仅是过度使用武力的诉求。客观标准更符合第十四修正案和最高法院判例的要求。