Law360 (July 28, 2026, 5:48 PM EDT) -- The Eighth Circuit has partially revived a lawsuit brought by four incarcerated people in a St. Louis jail, finding that guards at the facility should not be granted complete qualified immunity from claims that they used excessive force.

The three-judge panel held Monday that the men, Derrick Jones, Jerome Jones, Darnell Rusan and Marrell Withers should not have had claims tossed that separate instances of being maced, and being denied water constituted a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights.

"While each use of force involved an officer using mace against a detainee, each incident was independent and involved unique circumstances, including the specific officers and detainees, the surrounding events, and the detainee conduct that prompted the use of mace," Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz said in the opinion. "In these circumstances, the district court failed to perform a proper individualized qualified immunity analysis."

The opinion said that the four plaintiffs allege they were victims of separate excessive force claims by officers inside the St. Louis jail. Three of the men, Jerome Jones, Derrick Jones and Rusan, claimed they were abused by the same officer, identified in the opinion as Lieutenant Fowlkes.

Rusan claims that he was the subject of a strip search during a "shake down" of the housing unit, and Rusan fully complied with the search. An officer incorrectly told Lieutenant Fowlkes that Rusan refused a search, and Lieutenant Fowlkes deployed pepper spray, forcing Rusan to sit in a mace-filled inspection booth for several hours, the opinion said.

Lieutenant Fowlkes was also accused by Jerome Jones of similar conduct with Jones claiming he was handcuffed and placed in an inspection booth much like Rusan. Lieutenant Fowlkes then sprayed Jones and left him in the closed booth for over 30 minutes, forcing him to lay on the floor to breathe fresh air from under the door.

Derrick Jones claims that an officer used pepper spray during an altercation over whether Jones would go into a cell after his cellmates tested positive for COVID-19. Jones lunged at the officer and was maced again and taken to the ground by Lieutenant Fowlkes, the opinion said.

The officers restrained Derrick and to a medical room following the incident and complained that he could not breathe and that his "lungs were closing up," because of the mace. Lieutenant Fowlkes maced Jones again for seven seconds and told the other officers to "let him marinate," and not allow Jones to remove to spray, the opinion said.

The panel said that in both examples involving Jones and Rusan, the officers were unjustified in using the mace because they did not attempt to use other "lesser" means of force. The panel did find that Lieutenant Fowlkes should be given qualified immunity for macing Derrick during the first altercation, but that the second application of mace in the medical room was illegal, the opinion said.

Withers also claimed that he had been unfairly pepper-sprayed after he became upset when staff attempted to move him into a COVID-19 positive area of the jail. Withers threatened to "break the computer," and officers ultimately deployed mace on a handcuffed Withers when he refused to move into isolation, the opinion said.

The panel found that the officer who maced Withers, known as Officer Jones, violated Withers' constitutional rights because he was not a threat when the pepper spray was deployed. The panel said that Withers was seated and surrounded by five officers when Jones used the spray, the opinion said.

Derrick and Jerome Jones both also argue that in addition to the use of mace, a prison official also violated their rights by limiting their access to water after riots broke out. Jones did not say who was responsible Derrick claims that Lieutenant Fowlkes shut off the water access except for mealtimes, the opinion said.

The panel found that Lieutenant Fowlkes should be granted qualified immunity against Jones' claim because Jones could not present evidence that he was responsible for the water shutoff. Derrick's claim also failed because he could not prove that the decision to turn the water off amounted to "excessive" because it was needed to secure the facility, the opinion said.

A spokesperson for ArchCity Defenders, who represented the incarcerated men, said that they are pleased with the decision. The statement said the decision would have an impact on other people who are incarcerated in St. Louis.

"We're pleased that the Eighth Circuit saw sufficient grounds for the majority of our clients' claims to proceed," the statement said. "For over five years, our clients, and many others, detained pretrial at the St. Louis City Justice Center have carried the impact of excessive macing and water deprivation. We remain fully committed to supporting our clients as we take the next steps in this case."

A spokesperson for the City of St. Louis did not respond to a request for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Maureen Hanlon of ArchCity Defenders, Lauren E. Bartlett of St. Louis University Legal Clinic and by Shubra Ohri and Amy Elizabeth Malinowski of the MacArthur Justice Center.

The city and prison officials are represented by Abby Joe Duncan, Adriano Alfonso Martinez, Lawrence L. Pratt, Andrew D.Wheaton of the St. Louis City Counselor's Office.

The case is Derrick Jones et al. v. City of St. Louis Missouri, et al., case number 24-1912 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.