(CN) — The Kansas correctional officers involved in the in-custody death of a 17-year-old foster child must face claims of excessive force, battery and emotional distress, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.
Chief U.S. District Judge Eric F. Melgren found that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity as there are too many genuine issues of material fact to grant them their requested summary judgment and dismiss the civil claims related to the 2021 death of 17-year-old Cedric Lofton while in custody at a juvenile detention facility.
Due to discrepancies in various accounts of how the five officers subdued Lofton by restraining him on his stomach on the floor for 40 minutes, Melgren determined the officers were ineligible for qualified immunity.
The officers — Jason Stepien, Brenton Newby, Karen Conklin, William Buckner and Benito Mendoza — argued that Lofton posed an immediate threat to their safety, justifying their use of force.
The judge, who in July tossed similar claims brought against the Wichita police officers involved, agreed that it was reasonable for Stepien and Newby to restrain Lofton to gain control of the situation, but questioned the extent.
Melgren noted it was undisputed that Lofton’s combative behavior continued at the detention center’s intake center.
“Here, defendants knew that Lofton was unarmed. However, he repeatedly ignored Stepien’s and Newby’s commands, made unwanted advances toward them, verbally threatened them, fought against them trying to break free from their restraints, and ultimately battered them,” Melgren wrote.
“The more complex determination, however, is whether Lofton remained a safety threat throughout the 40-minute duration of the officers’ restraint,” Melgren added.
The officers argued that they didn’t exert significant pressure on Lofton while he positioned face down on his stomach, but a medical examiner presented contradicting evidence. The officers also argued that Lofton continued to fight and struggle against their attempts to subdue him, however, Teetz presented security camera footage he argued showed no signs of Lofton fighting or resisting.
“It seems obvious to the court from the video footage that Lofton was not completely subdued after the five-minute mark,” Melgren wrote. “Yet, it is also clear that there are large gaps of time — even acknowledged by defendants — during which no observable movement occurs.”
The five accused corrections officers painted a different picture about the events that preceded the teenager’s death than the plaintiff of the case, Lofton’s brother, Marquan Teetz, who followed up his initial June 2022 suit with an April 2023 second amended complaint.
Wichita police brought first Lofton to the juvenile intake and assessment center after he became combative with the officers who were trying to transport him to the hospital for a mental health evaluation. Lofton had run from a behavioral health clinic earlier that night, and police observed him hallucinating and acting out of touch with reality.
Lofton was taken to the hospital the morning of Sept. 24, 2021 after he became unresponsive while in custody at the facility. He died two days later.
Teetz also accused the officers of failing to intervene to prevent the others from using the excessive force that led to Lofton’s death. Because Melgren was unable to determine if the officers used excessive force, he was unable to rule in the officer’s favor on those counts as well.
Melgren also denied the officers summary judgement on the state law claims of battery and intentional affliction of emotional distress.
“Ultimately, genuine disputes of material fact regarding Lofton’s ongoing struggle and the reasonableness of Defendants’ actions preclude summary judgment on this claim,” Melgren wrote.
However, the officers were successful in the dismissal of Teetz’s state negligence and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims.
Melgren cited a juvenile detention policy that states that staff are not required to take youths to a hospital, and Melgren further contended that even if the officers had abused their discretion they would be protected under state law.