Tenth Circuit Affirmed Denial of Guards Qualified Immunity in Disabled Detainee’s Fourteenth Amendment Claim
by David Reutter
On August 4, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to two jail guards who refused to assist a pretrial detainee after he fell out of his wheelchair and requested medical assistance.
Ralph M. Hardy was a pretrial detainee on September 22, 2022, at Adams County Detention Center (ACDC) in Colorado. Hardy was attempting to get around a barrier to the toilet in his cell when he fell out of his wheelchair as he tried to transfer himself. Suffering from a permanent lower back injury, Hardy was unable to pick himself back up. Over the next 30 to 45 minutes, Hardy’s cellmate pressed the “emergency distress button” three times.
Guard Daniel DeHerrern was working in the control room at the time. Hardy alleged that rather than respond himself or call for other guards to assist, DeHerrern ignored the distress calls. Another guard later told Hardy that DeHerrern’s unit does not respond to distress calls because “some inmates abuse the buttons, and [guards] are not going to spend their entire shift chasing buttons.”
Hardy alleged he spent about an hour on the floor in severe pain. His cellmate then helped him into his wheelchair, but that caused further injury by placing him a contorted position. About ninety minutes after he fell, guard Dennis Rabie came to Hardy’s cell to serve dinner. Hardy was in the same contorted position and extreme pain as he explained the fall and situation to Rabie. Hardy verbally declared a medical emergency. Rabie did not take Hardy to receive medical care, telling him to file a grievance instead. It was not until the next shift that a guard called a nurse to care for Hardy.
Acting pro se, Hardy filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Hardy alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to due process. The Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting they were went tied to qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion, and the Defendants appealed.
The Defendants conceded that Hardy alleged facts, that if accepted as true, satisfy that DeHerrern’s actions meet the objective prong of the deliberate indifference standard. The Defendants, however, argued that Rabie’s actions cannot constitute a Constitutional violation because they are not “tied to any meaningful delay in receiving treatment.” The Tenth Circuit concluded the resolution of that question rested upon whether or not Hardy pleaded sufficiently serious pain to present an objective harm.
Hardy failed to present a timeline from the time Rabie entered his cell until he was left to await care from the next shift. “Regardless of the actual amount of time in pain caused by the delay,” the Court wrote, “Hardy alleged that he displayed signs of extreme pain and suffering that would be obvious to a layman in Deputy Rabie’s position.” Therefore, Hardy met the objective prong of deliberate indifference as to both Defendants.
Next, the Court found Hardy met the subjective prong by alleging that DeHerrern was aware of his situation via the distress signal, but he ignored it. As to Rabie, he was independently aware of the situation by his interaction in Hardy’s cell. The Court, finally, found the right alleged was clearly established. Therefore, the Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.
The district court’s order was affirmed. See: Hardy v. Rabie, 147 F.4th 1156 (10th Cir. 2025).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Hardy v. Rabie
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 147 F.4th 1156 (10th Cir. 2025) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |