CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DAVID M. HOPPER, Special Administrator of the Estate of Robert Andrew Richardson, Sr.,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PHIL PLUMMER, Montgomery County Sheriff; TED JACKSON, Sergeant; BRIAN LEWIS, Sergeant; DUSTIN JOHNSON, Corrections Officer; MATHEW HENNING, Corrections Officer; MICHAEL BEACH, Corrections Officer; KEITH MAYES, Corrections Officer; BRADLEY MARSHALL, Corrections Officer; MICHAEL STUMPFF, Corrections Officer; ANDREW WITTMAN, Corrections Officer,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 17-3175
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton.
No. 3:14-cv-00158—Michael J. Newman, Magistrate Judge.
Argued: December 5, 2017
Decided and Filed: April 12, 2018
Before: BATCHELDER, GRIFFIN, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

Robert Richardson suffered a seizure two days after he was booked into the Montgomery County Jail in Dayton, Ohio. Corrections officers and medical staff responded to the medical call. Despite both a jail policy that prohibited placing restrained inmates in a prone position and a medic’s appeal to handcuff Richardson in front, the officers handcuffed him behind his back and restrained him face down on the floor outside his cell. Richardson died after a twenty-two minute struggle during which record testimony indicates he continually stated he could not breathe.

Plaintiff David Hopper, in his capacity as Special Administrator of Richardson’s estate, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the corrections officers and Montgomery County Sheriff Phil Plummer. The district court denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment on qualified- and statutory-immunity grounds. They appeal that order, and raise the precedential issue of whether Richardson, a civil contemnor detainee, falls within the protections of the Eighth or the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Richardson was sanctioned outside the criminal context, we hold that the Fourteenth Amendment governs his § 1983 claims. The remaining issues either lack merit or fall outside the limited scope of our jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal. We therefore affirm in part and dismiss in part.