unreasonable under clearly established law existing at the time of the incident. See Club Retro, LLC v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 194 (5th Cir. 2009) 1. Clearly Established Constitutional Right Plaintiff has satisfied the first prong because she has alleged that Defendant Romero used excessive force against Saenz. See supra note 1. 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. 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) (<HOLDING>); Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F.2d 1440, 1445 (5th
holding that pretrial detainees can bring substantive due process claim recognizing pretrial detainees constitutional right to be from excessive force holding that the due process clause protects a pretrial detainee from the use of excessive force that amounts to punishment holding that pretrial detainees have at least the same protections under the fourteenth amendment as posttrial detainees have under the eighth amendment holding that inquiry as to whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity for use of excessive force is distinct from inquiry on the merits of the excessive force claim