context: Plaintiff has satisfied the first prong because she has alleged that Defendant Romero used excessive force against Saenz. As a pretrial detainee, Saenz had a Fourteenth Amendment Due Process right to be free from excessive force, and this right has been clearly established.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: recognizing pretrial detainee's Constitutional right to be from excessive force
citation_a.sentence: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (“It is clear ... that the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee form the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment.”); see also Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2471-72, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (recognizing pretrial detainee’s Constitutional right to be from excessive force); Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1445 (5th Cir. 1993).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.parenthetical: "It is clear ... that the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee form the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment."
citation_b.sentence: Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395 n.10, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989) (“It is clear ... that the Due Process Clause protects a pretrial detainee form the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment.”); see also Kingsley v. Hendrickson, — U.S. —, 135 S.Ct. 2466, 2471-72, 192 L.Ed.2d 416 (2015) (recognizing pretrial detainee’s Constitutional right to be from excessive force); Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1445 (5th Cir. 1993).