43 F.4th 633
6th Cir.2022Background
- Charles Stein was arrested on nonviolent drug charges and placed on suicide watch at Boone County Detention Center on Nov. 7, 2018; he was initially housed alone.
- Jordan Webster was arrested the same day on outstanding Ohio warrants for assault, had a recent violent altercation at a hospital, and was placed on suicide watch in a high-risk cell.
- Jail procedure uses a rapid booking classification and a more comprehensive 72-hour security classification; supervisors may override classifications and staff may change classifications when new information arises.
- After both detainees were cleared from suicide watch the same day, Sergeant Berry reclassified both to “Detox” and placed Webster into the same cell as Stein; Webster later attacked and severely beat Stein.
- Stein sued Deputies Sterling and Gunkel (and others) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference/failure to protect; the district court granted summary judgment, and Stein appealed.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying the post-Kingsley/Brawner framework (Westmoreland) and holding plaintiffs failed to show the officers acted with the requisite reckless disregard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers were deliberately indifferent / failed to protect Stein from Webster | Stein: officers knew or should have known Webster’s violent history and failed to flag/house him separately, creating an unreasonable risk | Defendants: followed booking procedures, relied on medical staff, and did not recklessly disregard risk | No; plaintiff failed to show officers acted with reckless disregard—summary judgment affirmed |
| Applicable standard for pretrial-detainee deliberate indifference | Stein: newer objective standard (post-Kingsley/Brawner) should govern and can support liability | Defendants: same standard applies; liability requires more than negligence | Court applied Westmoreland (four-element, objective test requiring reckless disregard) |
| Whether law was clearly established (qualified immunity) | Stein: defendants should have known housing a violent detainee with others violated detainee rights | Defendants: Brawner and post-Kingsley developments meant law was not clearly established | District court found law not clearly established as an alternative; appellate court affirmed on the merits (no constitutional violation) |
| Whether each defendant’s individual conduct was reckless (Sterling and Gunkel) | Stein: Sterling failed to flag violent history; Gunkel should have reviewed records and prevented grouping inmates | Sterling/Gunkel: acted reasonably given information, booking constraints, and reliance on medical clearance and procedures | Held: actions amounted at most to negligence; neither officer acted with the requisite reckless disregard |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective deliberate-indifference standard for convicted prisoners)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (pretrial detainee excessive-force claims evaluated under an objective-unreasonableness standard)
- Brawner v. Scott County, 14 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2021) (refined test for pretrial-detainee deliberate indifference)
- Westmoreland v. Butler County, 29 F.4th 721 (6th Cir. 2022) (applies Brawner to failure-to-protect; sets four-element test requiring reckless disregard)
- Richko v. Wayne County, 819 F.3d 907 (6th Cir. 2016) (pretrial detainees are protected from deliberate indifference under the Fourteenth Amendment)
- Greene v. Crawford County, 22 F.4th 593 (6th Cir. 2022) (hindsight cannot convert negligence into constitutional recklessness)
- County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (due process claims require more than negligence)
- McGaw v. Sevier County, [citation="715 F. App'x 495"] (6th Cir. 2017) (officers may reasonably defer to medical professionals when assessing medical-risk housing)