968 F.3d 845
8th Cir.2020Background
- Mark Ivey was arrested for DUI/drug possession after appearing high, vomiting, and defecating on himself; an ER evaluated him, diagnosed asthma and drug intoxication, and cleared him for confinement with a note that he needed an inhaler (albuterol) as needed.
- Ivey was booked into Audrain County jail and, over two days, vomited multiple times, showed an observed "seizure-like" episode one night, and declined offers of medical assistance when asked by officers and later by a nurse who examined him the morning after booking.
- Night-shift deputies Richard White, Nathanael Atkinson, and Nicholas Jensen cleaned his cell, monitored him (hourly checks were logged), and did not transport him to a hospital; about 3:00 a.m. a deputy found him pale and not breathing, officers performed CPR, and he later died; the coroner attributed death to acute asthma exacerbation (drug withdrawal causation disputed).
- Ivey’s father sued the three deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee’s serious medical needs and sued Audrain County for failure to train; the deputies moved for qualified-immunity summary judgment and the county moved for summary judgment.
- The district court denied summary judgment to the deputies (finding triable facts on serious medical need and deliberate indifference) and to the county; on interlocutory appeal the Eighth Circuit concluded the deputies are entitled to qualified immunity but held it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the county’s appeal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deputies were deliberately indifferent to Ivey’s objectively serious medical needs | Deputiffs (Ivey) argue deputies knew of asthma/withdrawal and failed to notify medical staff or call 911, so delay caused death | Deputies argue Ivey was conscious, communicated he declined care, and nothing in clearly established law required overriding a detainee’s refusal | Deputies entitled to qualified immunity because plaintiff failed to show violation of a clearly established right in these circumstances |
| Whether deputies violated clearly established law such that qualified immunity is denied | Ivey argues McRaven and other precedent put deputies on notice that ignoring obvious distress violates detainee rights | Deputies argue McRaven is distinguishable (incapacitated arrestee vs. communicative detainee here) and no controlling authority clearly dictated their required response | Court: McRaven materially different; no controlling authority or consensus establishes duty to act despite a conscious detainee’s refusal, so immunity applies |
| Whether appellate court may resolve county’s Monell/failure-to-train claim on these facts | Ivey argues county liable if deputies violated rights or systemic failures caused harm | County argues deputies’ qualified immunity forecloses county liability or that issues are resolved together | Court: Lacks jurisdiction to decide county appeal because qualified-immunity ruling was only that deputies’ rights were not clearly established (not a ruling that no constitutional violation occurred) |
| Whether alternative theories (failure to medicate/monitor) were properly before the court | Ivey’s father contends deputies failed to give prescribed albuterol and failed to continuously monitor as required | Deputies/court say those theories were not pursued on appeal and largely were not advanced below as independent claims | Court: Plaintiff abandoned those theories on appeal; appellate decision does not address them; dissent contends they were raised and create triable issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Thiel v. Korte, 954 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 2020) (defines qualified-immunity framework for officials)
- Krout v. Goemmer, 583 F.3d 557 (8th Cir. 2009) (jurisdiction to review denials of qualified immunity)
- Morris v. Cradduck, 954 F.3d 1055 (8th Cir. 2020) (deliberate indifference standard for pretrial detainees)
- McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2009) (denying immunity where officers relied on inaccurate medical info for incapacitated arrestee)
- Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) (clear-statement rule: avoid defining clearly established law too broadly)
- Estate of Walker v. Wallace, 881 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff must show officials were plainly incompetent or knowingly violated law)
- Dadd v. Anoka Cty., 827 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2016) (failure to administer prescribed medication can support deliberate-indifference liability)
- Phillips v. Jasper Cty. Jail, 437 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (not giving prescribed anti-seizure medication creates triable issue on deliberate indifference)
- Manning v. Cotton, 862 F.3d 663 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining when pendent Monell claims are inextricably intertwined with qualified-immunity issues)
- Webb v. City of Maplewood, 889 F.3d 483 (8th Cir. 2018) (qualified immunity for officers does not resolve whether a constitutional violation occurred)