11 F.4th 604
8th Cir.2021Background
- Justin Stufflebean, diagnosed with Addison’s disease and hypoparathyroidism, was sentenced and transported from the courtroom to Buchanan County Jail; his physician testified at sentencing about life‑threatening risk without medication.
- Transporting deputy Brian Gross did not report Stufflebean’s medical condition to the booking officer; booking deputy Dustin Nauman recorded intake answers that did not reflect a prior “Special Conditions—Medical” classification (disputed whether he could access prior records).
- Advanced Correctional Healthcare (ACH) nurses (Slagle, Helsel) delayed or failed to get physician orders and timely administer Stufflebean’s medications during jail booking; he was transferred to a Corizon facility where Dr. Frederick Covillo examined him but did not assure access to meds.
- Stufflebean deteriorated, suffered multiple emergency (“Code 16”) calls, was treated briefly by Corizon nurse Michelle Munger and returned to his cell, became unresponsive, and later died; cause of death: complications of polyglandular endocrinopathy.
- Plaintiffs (his parents) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (deliberate indifference) and wrongful death against county officials, jail deputies, Corizon and ACH employees and contractors; the district court denied several defendants’ motions to dismiss/for summary judgment on qualified and official immunity grounds.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, dismissed some appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and remanded: it held privately contracted medical staff cannot claim qualified immunity; reversed the denial of qualified immunity for some county supervisors and for the transporting deputy as to § 1983; and resolved official‑immunity issues for the deputies in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Can privately employed jail medical personnel (ACH/Corizon employees) invoke qualified immunity for § 1983 deliberate‑indifference claims? | Plaintiffs: defendants acted with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; defense not available. | Defendants: as state actors providing medical care, they may assert qualified immunity. | Medical employees of systematically organized for‑profit providers are not entitled to qualified immunity (no historical tradition; policy factors weigh against extension). Appeals by those medical staff and by ACH/Corizon were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| 2) Are Sheriff Strong and Jail Admin Hovey entitled to qualified immunity for supervisory § 1983 liability? | Plaintiffs: prior lawsuits and inaccurate ACH reports put supervisors on notice of a pattern of unconstitutional medical care; failure to oversee shows deliberate indifference. | Strong/Hovey: prior suits were denied/settled and did not create notice of a pattern; no deliberate indifference. | The prior suits and record do not establish the requisite pattern or notice; denial of qualified immunity was reversed for supervisors. |
| 3) Is transporting deputy Gross entitled to qualified immunity on § 1983 claim? | Plaintiffs: Gross heard the doctor’s testimony at sentencing and deliberately failed to report special medical needs at booking. | Gross: his duties focused on security, he had no training to make medical determinations, and he reasonably could believe booking would identify/notify medical staff. | Gross did not violate clearly established constitutional rights; he is entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claim. |
| 4) Are deputies Gross and Nauman entitled to Missouri official immunity on the wrongful‑death (state) claim? | Plaintiffs: deputies failed ministerial duties (reporting medical risk; accurate intake), so no official immunity. | Deputies: duties involved judgment (discretionary) or factual disputes about access to prior records; thus official immunity applies. | Gross: reporting question required judgment and was discretionary → official immunity applies. Nauman: genuine factual dispute whether he had access to prior intake (if he did, answering was ministerial); summary‑judgment official‑immunity denial as to Nauman cannot be resolved on present record and must be remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. 377 (2012) (qualified‑immunity analysis considers historical common law and policy reasons; context of private individuals retained by government is significant)
- Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399 (1997) (private, systematically organized contractors performing major government functions generally not entitled to qualified immunity)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (private physicians providing services to inmates act under color of state law for § 1983)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge of and disregard for substantial risk)
- McLean v. Gordon, 548 F.3d 613 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment)
- Langford v. Norris, 614 F.3d 445 (8th Cir. 2010) (Eighth Circuit precedent addressing deliberate indifference and immunity issues in prison medical cases)
- Sanchez v. Oliver, 995 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2021) (sister circuits have declined to extend qualified immunity to full‑time private prison medical staff)
- Tanner v. McMurray, 989 F.3d 860 (10th Cir. 2021) (no common‑law tradition of immunity for full‑time private medical staff working under color of state law)