Randy Berkshire v. Debra Dahl
928 F.3d 520
| 6th Cir. | 2019Background
- Randy Berkshire, an inmate with diagnosed bipolar disorder, OCD, and major depression, served in the prison Residential Treatment Program (RTP) and was elected RTP Housing Unit Representative (Warden’s Forum representative).
- After submitting an Agenda of inmate complaints on March 19, 2012, Dr. Debra Dahl raised Berkshire’s GAF from 48 to 53 on March 21, making him ineligible for RTP; he was discharged to general population and deteriorated clinically.
- Following discharge, Berkshire stopped medications, refused food and water, expressed homicidal and suicidal ideation, and ultimately attempted suicide on April 9, 2012.
- Donna Beauvais (outpatient unit chief) and Christopher Sermo (psychologist) supervised Berkshire post-discharge; evidence suggests they delayed transferring him to a Crisis Stabilization Program despite knowledge of suicidal behavior until after the attempt.
- Sergeant Michael Nelson denied Berkshire a bathroom break while he was restrained after the suicide attempt and left him lying in urine and feces for ~6–7 hours.
- Berkshire sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation (against Dr. Dahl) and Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference and conditions-of-confinement claims (against Beauvais, Sermo, Dr. Pozios, and Nelson). The district court denied qualified immunity; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment retaliation (Dr. Dahl) | Berkshire argues his work as Warden’s Forum representative was protected speech/petitioning; Dahl changed GAF to retaliate and remove him from RTP. | Dahl contends the Agenda included an individual complaint violating prison rules and that actions were not retaliatory. | Court held Berkshire engaged in protected conduct and presented sufficient circumstantial evidence (timing, lack of documentation, Dahl's lack of recollection) to overcome qualified immunity. |
| Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference (Beauvais & Sermo) | Berkshire contends they knew of his suicidal ideation and worsening self-harm but delayed transfer to intensive care and rendered grossly inadequate treatment. | Beauvais and Sermo dispute the extent of their involvement and contend their actions were not deliberately indifferent medical decisions. | Court held evidence (depositions, expert report, email, inmate declaration) created a triable issue that they acted with deliberate indifference; qualified immunity denied. |
| Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement (Sergeant Nelson) | Berkshire argues denial of bathroom break while restrained and leaving him in urine/feces for hours violated minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities. | Nelson argues a single denial is insufficient and cites precedent finding some lengthy deprivations not unconstitutional. | Court held Hope/Barker precedent gave fair warning; factual dispute whether conduct had penological justification precludes qualified immunity. |
| Qualified immunity for private physician (Dr. Pozios) | Berkshire alleged Pozios participated in care and knew of risks; Pozios raised qualified immunity below. | Pozios forfeited qualified-immunity argument by failing to object to the magistrate judge’s R&R; in any event, Sixth Circuit precedent treats private government-contracted doctors as not entitled to qualified immunity. | Court found Pozios forfeited the defense; McCullum controls (private physician not entitled to qualified immunity). |
Key Cases Cited
- Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378 (6th Cir. 1999) (retaliation framework for prisoner speech and assistance to other inmates)
- King v. Zamiara, 680 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2012) (application of Thaddeus-X to Warden’s Forum representative activity)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (U.S. 2002) (Eighth Amendment violation where punitive restraints denied water/toilet access for hours)
- Barker v. Goodrich, 649 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2011) (denials of water/toilet while restrained can be unconstitutional; provides fair warning)
- McCullum v. Tepe, 693 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2012) (private physician working for government not entitled to qualified immunity)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates Eighth Amendment)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1994) (deliberate indifference standard requires subjective awareness of substantial risk)
- Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001) (qualified-immunity principles for prison medical claims)