Dang Ex Rel. Dang v. Sheriff, Seminole County Florida
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8224
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Nam Dang, a pretrial detainee at John E. Polk Correctional Facility, suffered meningitis and multiple strokes after reporting headaches, neck pain, fever, vision/hearing issues, and other concerning symptoms while in custody.
- He was evaluated repeatedly by prison LPNs (Wilt, Preston‑Mayle, Scott, Roberts, Densmore) and Dr. Ogunsanwo between Jan. 29 and Feb. 23, 2012; treatment included Motrin, muscle rub, Robaxin, observation, vital checks, and ultimately ER transport when meningitis was suspected.
- Staff documented intermittent fevers, transient bizarre behavior, drooling, incontinence, and later white tongue patches and unsteadiness; medical staff ordered monitoring and referred Dang to a doctor multiple times before hospital transfer.
- Dang sued health care providers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutionally inadequate medical care and sued Seminole County Sheriff Eslinger in his official capacity for supervisory policies; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding (assuming a serious medical need) that defendants were not deliberately indifferent and therefore entitled to qualified immunity; no supervisory liability existed once no constitutional violation was found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether health‑care staff acted within discretionary authority | LPNs and doctors were acting under color of state law when treating Dang | Defendants acted pursuant to job duties and within authority | All providers acted within discretionary authority (qualified immunity threshold met) |
| Whether Dang suffered a constitutional violation (deliberate indifference) | Providers ignored signs of meningitis and delayed/withheld urgent care | Providers assessed, treated, monitored, referred, and ultimately sent Dang to ER; actions reasonable | No deliberate indifference; care did not shock the conscience |
| Whether brief delays or alleged protocol violations establish liability | Even short delays caused harm and policy violations show indifference | Delays were minimal (minutes) and policy breaches do not automatically equal constitutional violation | Delay and policy violations insufficient to show constitutional deprivation |
| Whether Sheriff Eslinger is liable under supervisory theory | Sheriff’s policies/customs produced inadequate care | No underlying constitutional violation; thus no basis for supervisor liability | Supervisor liability rejected (no constitutional deprivation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (two‑step qualified immunity inquiry: constitutional violation and whether right was clearly established)
- Goebert v. Lee Cty., 510 F.3d 1312 (standard for pretrial detainee medical care claims)
- Kingsland v. City of Miami, 382 F.3d 1220 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (subjective knowledge requirement for deliberate indifference)
- Harris v. Coweta Cty., 21 F.3d 388 (delay in treatment requires more than negligence to be unconstitutional)
- Rogers v. Evans, 792 F.2d 1052 (treatment must be so grossly inadequate as to shock the conscience)
- McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (elements of deliberate indifference)