520 F. App'x 385
6th Cir.2013Background
- Reed died of a drug overdose while detained at Three Forks Regional Jail; Hedgepath sued nine jail employees (three Supervisory Jailers: Pelphrey, Combs, Neely; six Deputy Jailers: Alexander, Lumpkins, Smyth, Fraley, Sebastian, Rowland) under federal and Kentucky law.
- Rowland, as shift supervisor, booked Reed and allegedly failed to complete background checks and a medical screening; booking docs stated Reed was “too high to sign,” though Rowland later admitted uncertainty about Reed’s ability to sign.
- Smyth conducted a strip search and placed Reed in a twenty-minute observation sequence; Reed later slept on a mat in an observation cell while deputies checked on him.
- Sebastian conducted twenty-minute checks and logged Reed as “OK” multiple times between 7:11 a.m. and 9:15 a.m.; Neely, aware of Reed’s presence, later found Reed unresponsive with no pulse.
- Reed’s death was attributed to a drug overdose; the district court dismissed the federal claims but allowed Kentucky tort claims to proceed; the district court denied qualified immunity for the Supervisory and Deputy Jailers, while Rowland’s appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
- The Third Circuit’s decision addressed whether the Deputy Jailers’ and Supervisory Jailers’ duties were ministerial or discretionary and whether immunity applied; Rowland’s appeal is not reviewable on the disputed facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ministerial vs discretionary duties of Deputy Jailers | Smyth/Smyth-like duties to monitor were discretionary | checks were discretionary medical judgments | deputies' duty to check consciousness is ministerial |
| Rowland’s appellate jurisdiction | Rowland seeks review of denial of immunity | appeal disputes facts; jurisdiction lacking | Rowland’s appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Supervisory Jailers’ duties and immunity | training and supervision to enforce policies were ministerial | training is discretionary, supervisory discretion | policy-enforcement and training duties ministerial; supervisors not immune; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamb v. Clark, 138 S.W.2d 350 (Ky. 1940) (establishes general framework for immunity based on discretionary/ministerial duties)
- Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510 (Ky. 2001) (defines ministerial vs discretionary duties and scope for immunity)
- Upchurch v. Clinton Cnty., 330 S.W.2d 428 (Ky. 1959) (discretion in performance of acts; manifests when judgment is needed)
- Haney v. Monsky, 311 S.W.3d 235 (Ky. 2010) (illustrates objective, binary nature of certain duties that are not discretionary)
- Sloas v. Rowan Cnty., 201 S.W.3d 469 (Ky. 2006) (supervision of prisoners in a work program; discretionary vs ministerial analysis for immunity)
- Jones v. Lathram, 150 S.W.3d 50 (Ky. 2004) (police use of judgment not always discretionary when duty is ministerial)
- Collins v. Commonwealth of Ky. Natural Res. & Envtl. Protection Cabinet, 10 S.W.3d 122 (Ky. 1999) (inspection/administration not requiring significant judgment; ministerial)
- Jerauld v. Kroger, 353 S.W.3d 636 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011) (discretionary medical evaluations; distinguish from ministerial duties)