Edmiston v. Borrego, 75 F.4th 551

Background

On July 6–7, 2019, Culberson County jail personnel responded to three calls about John Robert Schubert, who said someone was trying to kill him; deputy Melendez found Schubert nervous but oriented and arrested him on a parole-warrant.
Schubert was booked shortly after midnight; Sheriff Carrillo and jailer Borrego interviewed him, provided jail clothing and a mattress, but did not complete a TCJS suicide/mental-health screening or place him on suicide watch.
At about 2:42 a.m. a jailer (Zambra) observed Schubert half‑kneeling with a sheet tied to a shelf; the Sheriff removed the sheet and attempted CPR, but Schubert was pronounced dead (suicide by hanging).
Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to protect (Fourteenth/Eighth Amendments), alleging subjective knowledge/bystander and supervisory liability and Monell claims; Borrego, Carrillo, and Melendez invoked qualified immunity.
The district court denied qualified immunity in part, finding the complaint plausibly alleged subjective awareness and deliberate indifference; the defendants appealed interlocutorily.
The Fifth Circuit vacated the denial and rendered judgment for Borrego, Carrillo, and Melendez, holding the complaint failed to plausibly plead that each defendant had the requisite subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of suicide.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint plausibly alleges each defendant had subjective knowledge of a substantial suicide risk	Schubert’s repeated statements that someone was trying to kill him, his disheveled state, and TCJS noncompliance put defendants on notice	The record shows Schubert was oriented, gave coherent answers, had no documented suicidal history or CCQ match; those facts do not show actual knowledge of a substantial suicide risk	Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege subjective knowledge for Borrego, Carrillo, or Melendez; qualified immunity applies
Whether failure to complete TCJS screening or prior TCJS citations alone establish a constitutional violation	Noncompliance and prior citations demonstrate deliberate indifference and put officials on notice	There is no independent constitutional right to suicide screening; procedural violations alone do not establish subjective knowledge	Court held TCJS violations/omitted screening insufficient by themselves to show constitutional deliberate indifference
Whether Kingsley’s objective‑reasonableness standard governs pretrial detainee failure‑to‑protect claims	Kingsley’s objective standard should apply to pretrial detainee claims generally	Fifth Circuit precedent requires a subjective deliberate‑indifference standard for failure‑to‑protect claims	Court applied the existing subjective standard (Hare/Farmer) and rejected applying Kingsley under the rule of orderliness
Whether defendants’ alleged conduct (e.g., providing loose bedding) was clearly established to violate rights so as to defeat qualified immunity	Giving loose bedding/obvious ligature after awareness is clearly established deliberate indifference	Plaintiffs did not plausibly allege the awareness element; therefore the clearly‑established inquiry is immaterial	Court did not reach clearly‑established because plaintiffs failed to plead the first (subjective knowledge) prong

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Dep’t of Social Servs. of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (prison official must have subjective knowledge of substantial risk)
Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (deliberate‑indifference framework for episodic acts; duty to protect pretrial detainees)
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015) (objective‑reasonableness standard for excessive‑force claims; discussed and limited here)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions not accepted as facts at pleading stage)
Converse v. City of Kemah, 961 F.3d 771 (5th Cir. 2020) (pretrial detainee right to protection from known suicidal tendencies; examples of subjective knowledge)
Est. of Bonilla v. Orange Cnty., 982 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2020) (no independent constitutional right to suicide screening; need facts showing defendant knew of suicide risk)
Benfield v. Magee, 945 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2019) (pleading requirements to overcome qualified immunity at dismissal stage)