Estate of Barnwell Ex Rel. S.C.B. v. Grigsby
681 F. App'x 435
6th Cir.2017Background
- On Nov. 11, 2011, Dustin Barnwell took eight Flexeril pills, became unresponsive/unstable at home, and his fiancée called 911 reporting a possible overdose and that he had been "combative."
- Roane County officers arrived, found Barnwell on a loveseat, and—per plaintiff—handled him roughly; officers claim he became combative, kicked, and was restrained and handcuffed.
- EMS paramedics Randle and Cooker concluded Barnwell was overdosing and, invoking the county Rapid Sequence Intubation (RSI) protocol, administered succinylcholine (a paralytic) and attempted intubation; Barnwell later suffered cardiac arrest and died.
- Plaintiff's expert (Dr. Perlaky) opined succinylcholine was unnecessary, that Barnwell appeared able to breathe (evidence: kicking), and that intubation was improperly placed in the esophagus; autopsy attributed death to excited delirium from Flexeril overdose.
- Gilmore (on behalf of Barnwell's estate) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming (1) unlawful restraint and (2) administration of succinylcholine was excessive force; district court denied qualified immunity on the succinylcholine excessive-force claim and on a state-created-danger theory; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on excessive-force claim for administering succinylcholine | Gilmore: giving paralytic without medical necessity was deadly/excessive force and violated clearly established Fourth Amendment rights | Defs: they acted as medical responders following RSI protocol (medical, not law-enforcement act), so qualified immunity applies | Appeal on this ground dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because defendants' arguments depend on disputed facts; district court's fact-based denial stands for trial |
| Whether officers participated in decision to administer drug (role as law-enforcement vs. medical) | Gilmore: officers encouraged or participated in ‘‘knock him out’’ decision; acted punitively or to control, not medically | Officers: they did not order/administer drug and acted only to assist EMS in medical capacity | Dismissed on interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction because facts are disputed and not blatantly contradicted by record |
| Whether paramedics acted reasonably under RSI protocol (medical necessity) | Gilmore: expert disputes medical necessity; protocol improperly applied to an able-breathing, combative patient | Paramedics: followed RSI protocol and acted within medical judgment; protocol reasonable | Dismissed on interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction because factual disputes (expert credibility, application) remain |
| Whether state-created-danger theory applies | Gilmore: defendants’ actions created danger leading to death; state-created-danger exception to DeShaney applies | Defs: harm was inflicted by government actors (officers/paramedics), not by private actors, so state-created-danger inapplicable | Reversed district court: state-created-danger claim fails as matter of law because plaintiff alleges the injury was inflicted by state actors, not private third parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review fact-based denials of qualified immunity)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (denial of qualified immunity that turns on law is immediately appealable)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (exception when district-court factual finding is blatantly contradicted by record)
- Peete v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 486 F.3d 217 (distinguishing medical-responder actions from law-enforcement actions for Fourth Amendment analysis; state-created-danger framework discussion)
- McKenna v. City of Royal Oak, 469 F.3d 559 (appellate review of qualified immunity limited to pure legal questions; must accept plaintiff’s version of facts)
- McKenna v. Edgell, 617 F.3d 432 (Peete elaboration: role/purpose of first responders is an objective inquiry that can be a jury question)
- Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 136 F.3d 1055 (elements of state-created-danger doctrine)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (no general affirmative duty to protect private persons)
- Champion v. Outlook Nashville, Inc., 380 F.3d 893 (use of force after restraint can be excessive under Fourth Amendment)