Kelson v. Clark
1 F.4th 411
| 5th Cir. | 2021Background:
- On Dec. 30, 2016, Hirschell Fletcher, Jr. was assaulted and hit his head; blood and contusions were visibly apparent.
- Paramedics Kyle Clark and Brad Cox arrived with multiple police officers; plaintiffs allege Fletcher repeatedly requested treatment but was mocked and not examined or treated.
- Fletcher was arrested for public intoxication, booked, left unattended in a cell, found unresponsive the next morning, and died from a cranial bleed.
- Plaintiffs allege Clark and Cox later falsified reports to deny contact; the paramedics were indicted for falsifying records.
- Fletcher’s estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to treat (Fourteenth Amendment) and wrongful death; the district court denied Clark and Cox’s qualified-immunity motion and the paramedics appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity, allowing the claims against Clark and Cox to proceed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fletcher was in custody/detained when paramedics allegedly failed to treat him | Fletcher was surrounded by police and paramedics and reasonably believed he was not free to leave | Clark & Cox argue complaint fails to allege detention before transport; he was free on the sidewalk | Court: pleadings sufficiently allege detention (surrounded by five officers); draw inferences for plaintiff at pleading stage |
| Whether allegations state a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim | Clark and Cox refused to treat, mocked him, ignored visible head injuries and complaints, and lied in reports | Defendants say at most negligence or disagreement about treatment; comparable to Dyer where dismissal was affirmed | Court: allegations (no treatment, mocking, false reporting) plausibly show refusal/ignoring and meet deliberate-indifference at pleadings stage |
| Whether the right was clearly established such that qualified immunity is defeated | Pretrial detainees have a clearly established right to treatment; refusal to treat or ignoring complaints is actionable | Defendants claim no clearly established duty absent formal pretrial status or to diagnose non-obvious internal bleeding | Court: law was clearly established that detainees are entitled to treatment and that refusing to treat obvious injuries violates rights; alleged detention and visible injuries control |
| Dismissal of derivative wrongful-death claim tied to failure-to-treat claim | Wrongful-death claim derives from viable deliberate-indifference claim | Defendants argue wrongful-death fails if failure-to-treat claim fails | Court: because failure-to-treat claim survives, wrongful-death claim likewise survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (interlocutory appealability of qualified-immunity denials)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standards; legal conclusions not presumed true)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (pretrial detainee right to medical care)
- Dyer v. Houston, 964 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2020) (paramedic deliberate-indifference analysis; distinguishing negligence from constitutional violation)
- Domino v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2001) (elements of deliberate indifference: refusal, ignoring, intentional mistreatment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (subjective knowledge standard for deliberate indifference)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Constitution)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) (clearly established law / qualified-immunity standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (requirement for robust precedent to show rights beyond debate)