221603P.pdf   12/26/2023  Brandon Peterson  v.  Cmdr. Roger Heinen
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  22-1603
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kobes, Author, with Loken and Erickson, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff sued 16 jail officers and employees, 
   alleging various conditions-of-confinement claims, excessive-force claims, 
   and claims of deliberate indifference to medical needs. With respect to 
   plaintiff's excessive-force claims, plaintiff was a person awaiting 
   adjudication of a probation violation and his claims would be analyzed 
   under the Eighth Amendment, rather than the Fourteenth Amendment, which 
   applies to pretrial detainees; considering five of the six instances where 
   plaintiff contends officers used excessive force, in each instance, the 
   officers were entitled to qualified immunity as the force used was not 
   excessive or disproportionate; the sixth incident presents a genuine issue 
   of material fact as to whether plaintiff was complying with the officers' 
   commands when he was sprayed, and the district court did not err in 
   denying the officer's motion for summary judgment based on qualified 
   immunity; because plaintiff's claims against six of the officers were 
   based on their failure to intervene in the use of excessive force in the 
   first five incidents, defendants were entitled to summary judgment on the 
   failure-to-intervene claims; defendant Commander Heinen and two nurses 
   were entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity on plaintiff's 
   deliberate-indifference-to-medical-needs claims as the defendants made 
   repeated efforts to deal with his mental health issues; plaintiff's 
   conditions-of-confinement claims are remanded for a thorough qualified 
   immunity analysis; the district court did not reach the issue of official 
   immunity on plaintiff's state law claims, and those issues are remanded to 
   the district court; because certain claims are remanded, the court cannot 
   resolve on appeal whether Washington County may be liable under Monell; 
   reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.