UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ WILLIAM R. STEVENSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. R. CORDOVA, in his individual and official capacities; D. NUNEZ, in his individual and offi cial capacities; M. HOLLOWAY, in his individual and official capacities; K. TOPLISS, in his individual and offi cial capacities; C. WILLIAMS, in his individual and official capacities; K. CLI NKINBEARD, in his individual and official capacities; J. ESPINOZA, in his individual and official capacities; J. BUFMACK, in his individual and official capacitie s; M. BENAVIDEZ, in his individual and o fficial capacities; A. BELL, in his individual and official capacities; G. SULLIVAN, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants - Appellees, and V. WOLFE; J. HANSON, Defendants. No. 17-1053 (D.C. No. 1:14- CV-00649-CBS) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore (continued) FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 11, 2018
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 ________________ _________________ Before BRISCOE , HARTZ , and McHUGH , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ William R. Stevenson, a Colorado prisoner, filed a pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that corr ectional officers violated the Eighth Amendment by using excessive force to restrain him. He challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgme nt in favor of three defenda nts, a directed verdict in favor of one defendant, and the jury instruc tions in the trial on his claims against the remaining two defendants. Ex ercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm the district court’s judgment. I. Background 1 On February 29, 2012, Stevenson was approached by two female officers, including Sergeant Clinkinbeard, in an area of the prison referred to as the upper vestibule. His interaction with these two officers and the subsequent events was recorded by a security camera. 2 The security video sh ows other inmates walking through the upper vestibule as Stevenson spoke to the tw o officers. Clinkinbeard ultimately ordered Stevenson to submit to being handcuffed. There is no dispute that ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 The factual summary is based on the su mmary judgment record viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Stevenson.

2 The resulting security video does not include an audio recording.3 he refused to do so. He firs t raised both of his arms abov e his head. Then as the two officers attempted to force hi m to submit, he dropped to his knees and ultimately lay down on the floor with his arms beneath his body. Two more correctional officers entered the upper vestibule and joined the struggle to handcuff Stevenson, including Se rgeant Espinoza, who shot Stevenson in the back with a taser gun se veral times, the number of wh ich is disputed. Additional officers entered the upper ves tibule as the struggle with Stevenson continued. Ultimately, at least twelve officers arrived on the scene, including Sergeant Benavidez, Lieutenant Holloway, Lieutena nt Williams, and th e shift commander, Captain Cordova. At some point (the exact timing is uncle ar in the security video), Espinoza was able to handcuff Stevenson’s arms behind hi s back. Stevenson fe lt Espinoza slam the handcuffs on, squeezing them forcefully, and he asserts that the handcuffs cut deep into his skin, touching bone and quickly cutting off his circulation. Stevenson immediately complained that the handcuffs were too tight, but no officer took action to loosen them. When Stev enson’s arms and legs were restrained, Espinoza ordered him to stand and walk. He agreed to walk only if the officers would loosen the handcuffs. When several officers tried to lift him to his feet, he made his body limp and ended up back on the ground, where Ca ptain Cordova knelt and spoke with him for several minutes and Stevenson continued to complain that th e handcuffs were too tight. At one point he cried out in pa in when an officer pulled on his arm.4 Because Stevenson still refu sed to walk, several office rs lifted and carried him to the stairs at the far end of the uppe r vestibule, where th ey secured him to a backboard on his stomach with his hands still restrained behind his back. 3 He asserts that, while he was lying on the backboard, Sergeant Benavidez bent his wrists, let go when he cried out in pain, but then pulle d on his elbow. He again asked that the handcuffs be loosened. The officers carried Stevenson down several flights of stairs where they secured the backboard to a gur ney, then wheeled him across a yard to another building. In the medical unit, Stevenson again complained about the handcuffs being too tight, and they still we re not loosened. The officers ultimately wheeled Stevenson into the segregation un it, where they removed and replaced the first set of handcuffs. S till refusing to walk, office rs carried Stevenson to a segregation cell. The entire incide nt lasted approximately 60 minutes. Stevenson filed this pro se action 4 alleging that defendants used excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment by tasing hi m, applying the handcuffs too tightly, manipulating his wrists and ar ms while he was handcuffed to cause him additional pain, and refusing to loosen the ha ndcuffs. As relevant here, the district court granted summary judgm ent based on qualified immunity in favor of Williams,

3 At about this point one of the officers activated his body camera, and the rest of the incident was recorded with both video and audio.

4 Stevenson was represented by appo inted counsel during the summary judgment and trial proceedings in the distri ct court, but he proceeds pro se again on appeal.5 Clinkinbeard, and Espinoza, but concluded that some exces sive force claims against Cordova, Holloway, and Bena videz should proceed to tr ial. At the close of Stevenson’s evidence, the district court granted Benavidez judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). The jury th en returned a verdict in favor of Cordova and Holloway, finding that Stevenson had not proven his excessive force claims against them. On appeal , Stevenson challenges the district court’s summary judgment and directed verdict rulings. He also asserts errors in th e jury instructions. II. Discussion A. Excessive Force Standard An Eighth Amendment excessive force claim “involves two prongs: (1) an objective prong that asks if the alleged wrongdoing was objectively harmful enough to establish a constitutional violation, and (2) a subjective prong under which the plaintiff must show that the of ficials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.” Redmond v. Crowther , 882 F.3d 927, 936 (10th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An official has a culpable state of mind if he uses force ‘maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing ha rm,’ rather than ‘i n a good faith effort to maintain or rest ore discipline.’” Id. (quoting Whitley v. Albers , 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986)). In applying this standa rd, we recognize that when faced with a disruption, prison officials must balance the need to restore discipline with the risk of injury to inmates when force is used. See Hudson v. McMillian , 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992).6 B. Summary Judgment Ruling We review de novo a district court’ s grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity. Carabajal v. City of Cheyenne , 847 F.3d 1203, 1208 (10th Cir. 2017), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 211 (2017). A defenda nt’s assertion of qualified immunity triggers a two-part analysis asking (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a violation of a constituti onal right and (2) whet her that right was clearly established at the time of the violation. Id. The plaintiff bears the heavy burden of making this two-pa rt showing, without which a court must grant qualified immunity. Id. And a court may address thes e inquiries in any order. Id. The district court first held that the law was clearly established on all of Stevenson’s excessive force claims . It then divided his claims into two parts, separately considering the defendants’ use of force befo re and after Stevenson was restrained. The court held that he failed to come forward with facts sufficient to establish that any defendant committed an Eighth Am endment violation by using force to subdue and place him in handcuffs. But it held th at his evidence raised factua l disputes as to the use of force and whether it was excessive after he wa s restrained in the upper vestibule. The court concluded that, [t]here is some evidence from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Mr. Stevenson’s requests [that his handcu ffs be loosened] fell on deaf ears, not because of any legitimate security concerns, but rather because he would not be compliant and insisted that the officers carry him. If believed by a jury, Mr. Stevenson’s testimony might suggest that the handcuffs were not loosened in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, but rather maliciously for the purpose of causing pain.7 R., Vol. VI at 193. The district court allowed Stevenson’s pos t-restraint claims against Cordova, Holloway, and Benavidez to proceed to trial, but granted summary judgment in favor of Clinki nbeard, Espinoza, and Williams . On appeal, Stevenson argues there were material f acts in dispute whether the latter three defendants used excessive force. 5 1. Claim of Excessive Force in Tasing Stevenson Stevenson argues that Espinoza’s use of a taser was unnecessary because he was outnumbered by the correctional officers , he was lying pron e, and he was not resisting with physical force. He also fa ults Espinoza for using a taser without first trying lesser forms of force. But to suc ceed on an Eighth Amendment claim he must demonstrate more than “a mere dispute over the reasonableness of a particular use of force or the existence of argua bly superior alternatives.” Whitley , 475 U.S. at 322. The evidence must support an inference th at force was applie d “maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Id. at 320-21 (internal quotation marks omitted). To that end, Stevenson argues there is a factual dispute whether Espinoza warned him before using the taser. Bu t the only evidence he points to is the surveillance video, which has no audio reco rding. That video appears to show Espinoza running to the scene with a taser in his hand. But contrary to Stevenson’s

5 Stevenson argues that the district c ourt erred in granting summary judgment in favor of another defendant, Sergeant Sull ivan, but he dismisse d his claims against Sullivan with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See Aplee. App. at 16-17.8 assertion, it does not clea rly show that Espinoza bega n tasing him immediately and without any warning. Stevenson also argue s there is a factual dispute regarding the number of times he was tased. But it is undisputed that th e tasings were not effective in getting Stevenson to comply with being handcuffed. Gi ven the circumstances that Espinoza encountered, tasing Mr. Stevenson five (rather than th ree) times does not alter our analysis. Espinoza arrived to fi nd Clinkinbeard and anot her female officer wrestling with Stevenson on the floor in the upper vestibule, an area of the prison accessible by other inmates. Espinoza’s choice to use a tase r to try to induce Stevenson to comply with Clinkinbeard’s or der does not support an inference that he acted maliciously and sadistical ly to cause St evenson harm. 2. The Law was not Clearly Estab lished that Espinoza’s Use of a Taser would Violate Stevenson’ s Eighth Amendment Rights Even were we to ho ld that Stevenson demonstrated a constitutional violation based on the number of times that Espinoza ta sed him, summary judgment was still proper because he fails to es tablish that his Eight h Amendment rights were clearly established with regard to this claim. “To qualify as clearly established, a constitutional right must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable offici al would have understo od that what he is doing violates that right.” Redmond , 882 F.3d at 935 (interna l quotation marks omitted). In determining whether a right is clearly established, we look for a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit case that is su fficiently on point, or the cl early established weight of authority from other courts. Id. Ultimately, “existing preced ent must have placed the9 statutory or constitutional que stion beyond debate.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court held that Stevens on’s Eighth Amendment rights were clearly established as to all of his excessive fo rce claims. We respectfully disagree. 6 Here, because we conclude that that law was not cl early established, we also affirm summary judgment on this a lternative ground. See Carabajal , 847 F.3d at 1213 (affirming dismissal of claim on alternate basis that defendant was entitled to qualified immunity because law was not cl early established). Stevenson relies on Casey v. City of Federal Heights , 509 F.3d 1278, 1285-86 (10th Cir. 2007), but that ca se addressed the use of a ta ser in the Fourth Amendment context, see id. at 1281, which applies to force us ed “leading up to and including an arrest,” Porro v. Barnes , 624 F.3d 1322, 1325 (10th Cir. 2010). In light of the different—and higher—standard for liab ility under the Eighth Amendment, see id. at 1325-26, our holding in Casey did not provide Espinoza with notice that tasing

6 The district court stated only that “[t]he Supreme Court has long-recognized that the unnecessary infliction of pain on an inmate by a correctio nal officer violates the Eighth Amendment.” R., Vol. VI at 173. But this is not a case in which the constitutional violation was so obvious th at the plaintiff’s rights were clearly established in the absence of a materially similar prior case. See Brosseau v. Haugen , 543 U.S. 194, 199 (2004). Therefore, the district cour t erred in defining clearly established law at such a “high level of generality.” Redmond , 882 F.3d at 935 (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, “[t]he dispositive question is whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established. We therefore must determine whethe r a right is clearly establis hed in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).10 Stevenson under the circumstances presente d here would violat e his constitutional rights. Turning to Eighth Amendment case law, we have not found a Supreme Court decision or a published Tenth Circuit case that is sufficiently on point. 7 Nor have other circuit court decisions addressed a correctional officer’s use of a taser in sufficiently analogous circum stances such that the co nstitutional question is beyond debate. Compare Martinez v. Stanford , 323 F.3d 1178, 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding inmate demonstrated Eighth Amendment violation where, after he refused an order, officers struck him with plasti c bullets, entered his cell, pushed him to a seated position, tasered him twic e “despite his lack of resi stance,” beat hi m with their fists and with a wooden baton, and then ki cked, hit, and dragge d him out of the cell after handcuffing him), and Hickey v. Reeder , 12 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding officers violated inmate’s Eighth Amendment ri ghts by using a stun gun on him in his cell to enforce an order to sweep the cell, where the incident did not implicate a security concern or the safety of officers or inmates), and Lewis v. Downey , 581 F.3d 467, 479 (7th Cir. 2009) (d enying qualified immunity because a reasonable officer would unders tand that tasing an inmate in his cell without warning when he failed to immediately comply wi th an order would violate the inmate’s

7 In an unpublished case with similar facts, we upheld a judgment in favor of correctional officers finding that they had not used ex cessive force by tasing an inmate after he refused three orders to be handcuffed so office rs could remove him from his cell. See Jolivet v. Cook , 48 F.3d 1232, at *1-2 (10t h Cir. March 1, 1995) (unpublished). Our decision did not indicat e the number of times the taser was used.11 constitutional rights), with Jasper v. Thalacker , 999 F.2d 353, 354 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding there was no Eighth Amendment violation where officers grabbed inmate and applied a stun gun to him for several sec onds after the inmate refused an order, threatened an officer, and lunged toward him with clenched fists), and Caldwell v.
Moore , 968 F.2d 595, 596-97, 601-02 (6th Ci r. 1992) (holding there was no Eighth Amendment violation where offi cers entered an inmate’s is olation cell, shot him with a stun gun several times, a nd placed him in a straitjacket after he had refused for seven hours to comply with an order to cease shouting and kick ing his cell door). Because Stevenson fails to demonstrate a constitutional violation or that his Eighth Amendment rights were cl early established with rega rd to Espinoza’s use of a taser, we affirm the district court’s gr ant of summary judgme nt on that claim. 3. Claim of Excessive Force in Applying the Handcuffs Stevenson claims that Espinoza us ed excessive force in slamming the handcuffs on and forcefully sq ueezing them closed, causing th em to cut deep into his skin and cut off his circulation. He i nvokes the so-called “pinky rule,” under which restraints should be applie d loosely enough that a finger can fit between the handcuff and the person’s wrist. But defendants presented uncontested evidence that this guidance applies when an inmate is bei ng compliant, not when he is physically resisting application of the handcuffs. See R., Vol. IV at 264 (Cordova’s testimony contrasting a “passive” handcuffing to wh en officers are struggling to get the handcuffs on an inmate); id ., Vol. VI at 97 (Clinkinbe ard’s testimony that “[i]n a tactical situation, where the offender is not complian t [leaving space between the12 handcuff and wrist] doesn’t alwa ys happen”). Here it is undisputed that, at the time Espinoza applied the handcuffs, Stevenson was resisting the efforts of multiple officers to physically force him to submit. Under th e undisputed circumstances in which Espinoza acted, Stephenson fails to show that the ev idence supports an inference of malicious and sadi stic conduct. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on this claim based on his failure to demonstrate a constitutional violation. 4. Claim of Excessive Force in Refusing to Loosen Handcuffs Stevenson maintains that, in granting su mmary judgment in favor of Williams, Espinoza, and Clinkinbeard, the district co urt ignored undisputed evidence that these defendants were present in the upper vestibul e and in close proximity to him while he repeatedly complained that the handcuffs were excessi vely tight. He argues his claims against these defendant s based on their refusal to loosen his ha ndcuffs should have proceeded to trial. In its summary judgment order, the district court cons trued Stevenson’s refusal-to-loosen claims as brought against Cordova and Holloway. See R., Vol. VI at 194-96. This is consistent with Stevenson’s complaint, in which he alleged that the supervisor defendants were liable fo r refusing to check the tightness of the handcuffs, loosen them, or direct s ubordinate officers to loosen them. See id. , Vol. I at 59-61; see also id. , Vol. VI at 60-61 (defendants’ summary judgment reply brief quoting complaint and arguing that Stev enson did not allege claims against Clinkinbeard or Espinoza for refusing to loos en the handcuffs). Accordingly, we see13 no error in the district court’s failure to consider eviden ce on claims against Clinkinbeard and Espinoza that Stevenson did not allege against these defendants in his complaint. But Stevenson did allege a refusal- to-loosen claim against Lieutenant Williams. In granting Williams summary judgment, the di strict court held that the evidence suggested he “remained on the pe riphery of the incident and played no active role in restra ining Plaintiff.” Id. , Vol. VI at 197. St evenson argues that the court ignored evidence that Williams wa s present in the uppe r vestibule from soon after he was handcuffed until he was being wh eeled into the yard on the gurney. He contends that—as the district court held with regard to th e other supervisors, Cordova and Holloway—the evidence shows that Willia ms could hear his complaints about the too-tight handcuffs but t ook no action to loosen them. We agree that the district court’s re asoning in granting summary judgment in favor of Williams—that he played no active role in restraining Stevenson—fails to address his claim based on Williams’s in action. But we need not decide whether the evidence demonstrates a constitutional viola tion because we concl ude that Stevenson fails to show that his Eighth Amendment rights with respect to this claim were clearly established. He again relies on cases addressing the us e of force against an arrestee in circumstances governed by the Fourth ra ther than the Eighth Amendment. See, e.g., Vondrak v. City of Las Cruces , 535 F.3d 1198, 1208-09 (10th Cir. 2008) (holding police officers were not entitled to qua lified immunity on Fourth Amendment14 excessive force claim where th ey ignored arrestee’s compla ints that handcuffs were unduly tight, the arrestee suffered a perm anent actual injury, and the constitutional right was clearly established). And we have not found an Eighth Amendment case with sufficiently analogous fact s, in this circuit or othe rwise, that would have put Williams on notice that his inaction amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Our cases involving a use of fo rce against a prisoner who was restrained involved significantly greater force than the refu sal to loosen handcuffs alleged here. See Mitchell v. Maynard , 80 F.3d 1433, 1439, 1440-41 ( 10th Cir. 1996) (holding jury could find prison guards acted maliciously and sadistica lly by stripping an inmate, placing him in wrist, ankle, and belly chains, picking him up by his elbows and forcing him to run across a gravel yard, then kicking him when he fell while yelling racial epithets); Miller v. Glanz , 948 F.2d 1562, 1564, 1567 (10th Cir. 1991) (holding allegations sufficient to state an Eight h Amendment claim wh ere officers kicked, beat, and choked a prisoner who was handc uffed behind his back and whose ankles were also restrained)

. Thus, Williams was entitled to qua lified immunity on Stevenson’s refusal-to-loosen claim beca use the law with respect to his Eighth Amendment rights was not clearly established. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on that claim.15 Stevenson has not shown any error in the district court’s summary judgment ruling. 8
C. Directed verdict Stevenson’s post-restrain t excessive force claims against Benavidez, Holloway, and Cordova proceeded to trial. At the close of Stevenson’s evidence, the district court granted Benavi dez’s motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a), which provi des: “If a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue, the court may . . . resolve the issue agai nst the party.” The court revi ewed the eviden ce related to Benavidez’s use of force. As seen in the s ecurity video, Benavidez lay across Stevenson’s legs after he was handcuffed in the upper vestibule, th en he stood on the sidelines. The court credited Stevenson’s testimony that wh en he was strapped to the backboard Benavidez bent his wrist a nd pulled on his elbow, but let go each time when Stevenson called out in pain. The district court also noted the undisputed testimony that the officers had difficulty carrying the backboard by its hand-holds with Stevenson strapped to it, and theref ore some contact with his body occurred. Finally, the evidence also show ed that Benavidez put his hand on Stevenson when he

8 Stevenson also argues that the district court erred in failing to address in its summary judgment order his claim that Co rdova’s practices, policies, directives, customs, or procedures caus ed him to be subjected to excessive force by Cordova’s subordinates. But neither the defendants’ summary judgment motion nor his response addressed that specific claim.16 was lying on the narrow gurney, this time out of concern that the gurney could tip. The court held that a reasonable jury c ould not conclude from this evidence that Benavidez’s conduct was ma licious and sadistic. We review de novo the district court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict, applying the same standard as the district court. West v. Keef , 479 F.3d 757, 758 (10th Cir. 2007). Stevens on argues the evidence supp orts an inference that Benavidez intended to injure him because there was no penological purpose for his conduct when Stevenson was strapped to a backboard and incapable of posing any threat. We see no error. An excessive fo rce claim should not go to the jury unless the evidence “will support a reliable inference of want onness in the infliction of pain.” Whitley , 475 U.S. at 322. Here, the evid ence regarding Benavidez’s conduct falls far short of a showing that the force he used am ounted to cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the entry of j udgment as a matter of law in favor of Benavidez. D. Jury Instructions The district court instru cted the jury on the elemen ts of Stevenson’s claims against Cordova and Holloway in Instructi on Nos. 10 and 11. The jury was required to find that: (1) each de fendant used force against him by not loosening the handcuffs; (2) the force used was excessive; and (3) St evenson suffered harm. The court further instructed the jury that [w]hether a use of force against a pr ison inmate is excessive depends on whether the force was applied in a good -faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, or whether it was done maliciously and sadistically to cause17 harm. If the force was used maliciously and sadistically for the purpose of harming Plaintiff Stevenson, then it was excessive. R., Vol. VI at 270, 272. These instructi ons also defined the terms “maliciously” and “sadistically,” and advised the jury of seve ral non-exclusive factor s it could consider in deciding whether the force used was exce ssive, including the extent of Stevenson’s injury, the need for applying force, the relationship between the need to apply force and the amount of force used, the threat reasonably perceived by the officers, and efforts made to temper the severity of a forceful res ponse. The jury returned a verdict finding that Stevenson failed to pr ove his excessive force claims against Cordova and Holloway. Stevenson raises numerous cl aims of error in the jury instructions. He first contends that the court erred in failing to give instructions on two other theories of liability: (1) bystander li ability and (2) liability ba sed on Cordova’s practices, policies, directives, customs, or procedures that cause d him to be subjected to excessive force by Cordova’s s ubordinates. Stevenson also raises several contentions of error in Instruction Nos. 10 and 11. He argues these instru ctions erroneously omitted (1) that the jury could infer malicious and sa distic intent based on the defendants’ refusal to loosen the handcuffs in the absence of a legitimate penological purpose, and (2) that the defe ndants were required to balan ce the need to maintain or restore order against the risk of injury, as stated in Hudson , 503 U.S. at 6. He further contends that the court erred in instructi ng the jury that his cl aims against Cordova18 and Holloway required evidence of their mali cious and sadistic in tent rather than their deliberate indifference. Stevenson did not preserve his claims of error in the jury instructions by objecting at the trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c)(1) (“A party who objects to an instruction or the failure to give an inst ruction must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection.”). We therefore review his contentions only for plain error. Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(d)(2) (“A court may consider a plain error in the instructions that has not been preserved . . . if the error affects substantial rights.”). To obtain reversal on plain-error re view, the appellant must satisfy a four-prong test. It must show (1) an e rror (2) that is plain, meaning clear or obvious under current law, and (3) a ffecting substantial rights. If these elements are satisfied, we may exercise discretion to correct the error if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity , or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Therrien v. Target Corp. , 617 F.3d 1242, 1253 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Stevenson fails to show plain error in the district court’s failure to give instructions on two other theories of liabil ity. After the district court dismissed Benavidez from the case, it declined to inst ruct the jury on any claim against Cordova and Holloway predicated on a theory of supervisory liability because there was no evidence of a constitutional violation by any subordinate. See Dodds v. Richardson , 614 F.3d 1185, 1195 (10th Cir. 2010). That same lack of evidence also precluded Stevenson’s claim ag ainst Cordova based on the theory that his policies,19 procedures, etc., caused his s ubordinates to use excessive force against Stevenson. Moreover, Stevenson never prop osed an instruction on that claim, and he fails to point to any evidence at trial s upporting that theory of liability. Stevenson did propose an instructi on that the defendants had a duty to intervene when they witnessed other correctional officers violating a prisoner’s constitutional rights. He ar gues his proposed instruction correctly stated the law on bystander liability. But wh en Cordova and Holloway we re the only remaining defendants, the district court ruled that the claims against th em were limited to whether they had used excessive force in refusing to loosen th e handcuffs. If it was error not to also instruct the jury on bystander liability as between Cordova and Holloway, the error was not plain and St evenson’s substantia l rights were not affected. He has not shown an y error with respect to the district court’s failure to give either of these instructions on alternate theories of liability. Regarding Instruction Nos. 10 and 11, Stevenson raised one of his appeal contentions in his motion for new trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59( a). He argued that the district court erroneously omitted an instruction that the defendants’ requisite intent—using force against him maliciously and sadistically—could be inferred from the absence of evidence of a legitimate penol ogical purpose. The district court held that Stevenson waived this argument under the invited-error doctrine because he had stipulated to the pertinent portions of Instruction Nos. 10 and 11. See United States v. Fields , 516 F.3d 923, 939 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he invited-error doctrine precludes a party from arguing that the district court erred in a dopting a proposition that the20 party had urged the district court to adopt.” (i nternal quotation marks omitted)). The court also held that Steven son failed to demonstrate erro r because the instructions directed the jury to decide whether the use of force was a “good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,” which the court equated with “a legitimate penological purpose.” Stevenson does not s how that the district court abused its discretion in denying this claim of error on either basis. See Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City , 718 F.3d 1244, 1250 ( 10th Cir. 2013) (reviewi ng denial of Rule 59 motion for abuse of discretion). The same reasoning applies to Stevens on’s claim that the court failed to instruct the jury that the de fendants were required to balanc e the need to maintain or restore order against the risk of injury. He waived th is argument by stipulating to Instructions 10 and 11, and he also fails to show plain error in light of the inclusion in these instructions of a list of non-exclusive factors that the jury was to consider in deciding whether the for ce used was excessive. Finally, Stevenson also fa ils to show plain error in the district court’s instruction on the state of mind necessary to find that Cordova and Holloway used excessive force. 9 He argues the standard should ha ve been deliberate indifference. We have applied that standard to a superv isor’s liability for a subordinate’s use of

9 Stevenson asserts that he raised this objection du ring the jury instruction conference, but he objected to the use of “malicious and sadistic” in the instructions rather than “malicious or sadistic.” That objection did not preserve his argument that the proper state of mind for liability is deliberate indifference. See Therrien , 617 F.3d at 1252.21 excessive force against a prisoner. See Serna v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr. , 455 F.3d 1146, 1151-52 (10th Cir. 2006). But it remains an open question whether that standard still applies in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662 (2009). See Dodds , 614 F.3d at 1197-99 (discussing Iqbal and concluding that a claim against a supervisory defe ndant must allege that he acted with the state of mind necessary to establish the alleged constitu tional violation). To the extent that Stevenson is challenging the di strict court’s decision not to give an instruction on supervisory liability based up on the defendants’ deliberate indifference, the lack of evidence of any constitutional violation by a subordinate precluded that theory of liability. And he otherwise fails to demonstrate that Instruction Nos. 10 and 11 erroneously required the jury to find that Cordova and Hollowa y acted maliciously and sadistically in refusing to loosen the handcuffs, as is required for liability on an Eighth Amendment claim of ex cessive use of force. See Hudson , 503 U.S. at 6-7. E. Pending Motions We dispose of Stevenson’s pending moti ons as follows: We grant Stevenson’s motion to proceed on appeal without prep ayment of costs and fees. We deny his motion for free transcripts pur suant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) as unnecessary. The record on appeal now includes the complete tria l transcript, which was included in the district court docket. This court has reviewed the tr ial transcript in ruling on Stevenson’s appellate issues. We also de ny his motion to incl ude certain deposition transcripts in the record on appeal because the r ecord includes the deposition transcripts submitted as exhi bits to the parties’ summary judgment filings. We deny22 his motion to file an oversized reply brief. We deny as moot his renewed motion to appoint counsel and his motion for a mandatory injunction. III. Conclusion The district court’s judgment is affirmed.

Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge