Shane Bailey v. Don Feltmann
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 636
8th Cir.2016Background
- On March 13, 2012, Shane Bailey punched his truck, injuring his right hand; paramedics treated and bandaged the wounds at the scene and reported that sutures and ER evaluation were recommended.
- Deputy Don Feltmann, noting alcohol odor and signs of injury (blood on bandages and truck), arrested Bailey for alcohol-related offenses and transported him directly to the county jail instead of to a hospital.
- At the jail, blood continued to seep through Bailey’s bandages; Bailey did not request further treatment from Feltmann and was turned over to jail staff.
- The next morning Bailey went to an ER: physician found mild pain, no numbness, no fracture, removed a glass fragment, did not suture (wounds ~24 hours old), treated a forehead laceration, and discharged him.
- Bailey alleges § 1983 claim that Feltmann’s failure to take him to the hospital denied emergency medical care in violation of his constitutional rights; district court granted summary judgment for Feltmann.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed qualified immunity and whether Bailey showed (a) a constitutional violation and (b) that the right was clearly established in March 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Bailey's Argument | Feltmann's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Proper constitutional standard for an arrestee’s denial-of-medical-care claim (Fourth Amendment objective reasonableness vs. Due Process deliberate indifference) | Bailey urged application of Fourth Amendment objective-reasonableness standard | Feltmann argued that there was no clearly established Fourth Amendment right to delay in medical care for arrestees in March 2012 | Court avoided deciding the precise standard and held the Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable delay was not clearly established as of March 2012, so qualified immunity applies on that theory |
| 2. Whether a pretrial-detainee/arrestee has a clearly established right to be free from deliberate indifference to medical needs | Bailey argued the right was clearly established and Feltmann acted with deliberate indifference by taking him to jail instead of hospital | Feltmann argued he reasonably believed paramedic care and bandaging were sufficient and that no obvious emergency existed | Court held deliberate-indifference standard was clearly established by 2012, but Bailey failed to show facts meeting that standard |
| 3. Whether facts show deliberate indifference (objectively serious need + actual knowledge) | Bailey relied on paramedics’ statement that sutures/ER evaluation were needed, continued bleeding through bandages, and facial expressions as obvious signs | Feltmann relied on paramedics’ treatment, controlled bleeding per their report, lack of visible wound (bandaged), no complaints by Bailey in custody, and minimal subsequent injury evidence | Court held Bailey failed to present medical evidence of an objectively serious need or that delay caused harm; circumstances were not so obvious that a layperson would recognize an emergency, so qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (establishes qualified immunity standard)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (framework for qualified immunity inquiry)
- Thompson v. King, 730 F.3d 742 (8th Cir. — recognizes detainee right free from deliberate-indifferent denials of emergency medical care)
- Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644 (8th Cir. — applied due process analysis to arrestee medical-care claim)
- McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. — objective-seriousness medical-need standard; layperson-obvious test)
- Jones v. Minnesota Department of Corrections, 512 F.3d 478 (8th Cir. — definition of objectively serious medical need)
- Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 135 S. Ct. 2466 (Supreme Court — note on standards for detainee excessive-force claims; discussed in relation to reasonableness standard)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (Supreme Court — excessive-force framework under Fourth Amendment)