Case Explained: Estate of Kevin Dizmang v. Reed, et al.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-06

Docket: 1:24-CV-00423-CNS-MDB)

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Estate’s § 1983 claims against police officer Sean Reed and paramedic Nicholas Fischer. The court held that Fischer is entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim because the Estate failed to demonstrate that his right to be free from such force was “clearly established” at the time of the incident. Applying the standard that a right is clearly established only if existing precedent places the constitutional question beyond debate, the court found that prior Tenth Circuit cases, including *Weigel v. Broad*, involved materially different conduct where force was used for significantly longer periods after a suspect was subdued. In this instance, Fischer’s use of force lasted approximately 81 seconds while Reed applied handcuffs to Dizmang, who was actively fleeing and struggling; thus, the law did not provide fair notice that such restraint constituted excessive force. Regarding the failure-to-intervene claim against Reed, the court affirmed dismissal because the Estate waived its challenge by failing to defend the original Fourth Amendment theory on appeal, instead attempting to argue a new Fourteenth Amendment custodial duty theory for the first time. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim as abandoned, noting that the Estate failed to address Fischer’s qualified immunity defense regarding this specific federal claim in its response briefs, having only argued state-law tort immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act. The practical consequence is that the judgment of the district court is affirmed, resulting in the dismissal of all federal constitutional claims against the defendants with prejudice on qualified immunity and abandonment grounds.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.