Mary Goodman v. Clayton County Sheriff Kemuel Kimbrough
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 12740
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Bruce Goodman, a 67-year-old with dementia, was attacked by his cellmate at Clayton County Jail in the early morning of Sept. 9–10, 2008.
- Goodman, through his wife Mary, sued Boland and Feemster in their individual capacities and Sheriff Kimbrough in his official capacity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference.
- Goodman was placed in Housing Unit 7, Section 6 (admin/segregation) with a cellmate; jail policy required 6 p.m. and midnight head counts and hourly cell checks after midnight.
- Boland and Feemster did not perform the required head counts or cell checks; Feemster did not complete the 6 p.m. head count as required and both failed to conduct midnight checks.
- They allegedly deactivated an inmate’s emergency call button and did not investigate why it was pressed; inmates reported sounds of violence but officers denied awareness.
- The Internal Affairs investigation led to recommendations for termination, but Boland and Feemster were only suspended/shortened suspensions; Raspberry was charged in relation to the beating.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boland and Feemster acted with deliberate indifference. | Goodman asserts knowledge of risk and disregard of it. | Officers were not subjectively aware of a substantial risk to Goodman. | No genuine issue of material fact; no subjective awareness; district court affirmed. |
| Whether deactivation of emergency buttons shows deliberate indifference. | Button deactivations demonstrate disregard of risk to Goodman. | Evidence shows at most gross negligence, not subjective awareness of risk. | Insufficient to prove deliberate indifference; affirmed summary judgment. |
| Whether Sheriff Kimbrough can be held liable in his official capacity. | Custom or policy of the Sheriff’s Department caused the violation. | No policy or widespread custom; policy complied with but violations occurred. | No policy/custom establishing deliberate indifference; affirmed. |
| Mary Goodman’s loss of consortium claim. | Derivative claim should follow if underlying §1983 claim succeeds. | If underlying claims fail, derivative claim fails. | Derivative claim barred; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994) (deliberate indifference requires subjective awareness of a substantial risk)
- Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2003) (supervisory liability requires notice of a flagrant, persistent pattern)
- McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge of risk)
- Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007) (clarifies standards for deliberate indifference and supervisory liability)
- Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579 (11th Cir. 1995) (Fourteenth Amendment standard aligns with Eighth in context of due process)
- Carter v. Galloway, 352 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2003) (standard for proving deliberate indifference on summary judgment)
- Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533 (11th Cir. 1990) (negligence alone does not support §1983 liability)
- West v. Tillman, 496 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2007) (reiterates the rigorous standard for supervisory liability)
- Purcell ex rel. Estate of Morgan v. Toombs County, 400 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2005) (deliberate indifference requires awareness of substantial risk)
- Jones v. UPS Ground Freight, 683 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2012) (hearsay in summary judgment context must be admissible or reducible to admissible form)