Lemire v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16317
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- On May 10, 2006, inmate Robert St. Jovite (a CCCMS-classified, mentally ill inmate) was found unconscious in his cell at CSP‑Solano and later pronounced dead; family sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations.
- Building 8 housed mostly mentally ill inmates and was normally staffed in daytime watches by two floor officers plus a control booth officer; on the day of the incident all floor officers were called to back‑to‑back staff meetings, leaving the building without floor supervision for up to 3.5 hours.
- Plaintiffs allege supervisory defendants (Warden Sisto, Captain Neuhring, and others) deliberately removed supervision, creating an obvious risk; they also allege officers Rebecca Cahoon and Chris Holliday failed to administer timely CPR after St. Jovite was discovered.
- Factual disputes exist about timeline: when Cahoon/Holliday discovered St. Jovite, when the medical code was called, and when medical staff (MTA Hak, RN Hill, SRN Hicks, Dr. Noriega) arrived and assessed him.
- District court granted summary judgment to all defendants; the Ninth Circuit reversed in part: vacating summary judgment as to Sisto and Neuhring (withdrawal of floor officers) and as to Cahoon and Holliday (failure to provide CPR), and remanding those claims; it affirmed summary judgment as to the remaining defendants and claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Removal of all floor officers from Building 8 | Withdrawing floor staff for ≈3.5 hours exposed mentally ill inmates to an objectively substantial risk and supervisors were deliberately indifferent | Meetings were justified/routine; no one knew removal posed an obvious, substantial risk to a particular inmate | Reversed as to Warden Sisto and Captain Neuhring (triable issues on objective risk, deliberate indifference, causation); affirmed as to Wong, Martinez, Orrick |
| Failure to administer CPR by first responders (Cahoon & Holliday) | Officers delayed or failed to provide CPR despite obvious need and training, causing death | Officers reasonably deferred to medical staff and followed procedures; medical personnel determined death was irreversible | Reversed as to Cahoon and Holliday (triable issues whether they were deliberately indifferent and causation); other responders affirmed |
| Liability of other custodial/medical staff (Wade, Alcaraz, Chua, Hak, RN Hill, Hicks, Noriega, Wong, Martinez, Orrick) | Many defendants either failed to act or improperly deferred, violating CPR policy and constituting deliberate indifference | Responders reasonably relied on medical staff or conducted assessments showing resuscitation futile | Affirmed for all remaining defendants — no triable deliberate‑indifference claim shown against them |
| Failure to train/supervise (Wardens Carey, Tranquina) | Supervisors failed to ensure staff were trained on the amended CPR policy and to enforce life‑saving obligations | CDCR implemented the Dovey/CPR policy; plaintiffs offer no evidence supervisors knew of training lapses | Affirmed in favor of supervisors — no evidence of constructive or actual notice that training was inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (deliberate indifference standard for prison official liability)
- Gibson v. County of Washoe, Nev., 290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2002) (policy awareness and triable issue on risk to similarly situated detainees)
- Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2010) (causation and objective/subjective risk analysis in § 1983 failure‑to‑protect/medical cases)
- Lewis v. County of Sacramento, 523 U.S. 833 (conscience‑shocking standard for substantive due process)
- Tennison v. City & County of San Francisco, 570 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2009) (deliberate indifference and conscience‑shocking analysis)
- Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir. 1982) (inadequate staffing can create an objective substantial risk of harm)
- Cartwright v. City of Concord, 856 F.2d 1437 (9th Cir. 1988) (distinguishing circumstances where failure to render CPR did not show deliberate indifference)