88 F.4th 275
3rd Cir.2023Background
- On Dec. 14, 2019, Harrisburg officers stopped Terrelle Thomas and observed signs suggesting he had ingested a large amount of cocaine (white powder on face/lips, substance in mouth, cocaine rocks fell from shirt; he also spat a white liquid).
- Multiple officers (Foose, Johnsen, Salazar, Banning, Carriere, and probation officer Kinsinger) believed Thomas had ingested narcotics and warned ingestion could be harmful or fatal.
- Harrisburg policy required transporting arrestees to a hospital when narcotic ingestion could jeopardize health, but officers instead transported Thomas to Dauphin County Booking Center, which contracts with PrimeCare for limited jail medical care.
- Jail/PrimeCare staff did not send Thomas to a hospital; he was placed in a cell without observation; within two hours he collapsed, suffered cardiac arrest, was taken to hospital, and died three days later from cocaine and fentanyl toxicity.
- The district court denied the officers’ qualified-immunity defense on two Fourteenth Amendment claims: (Count IV) failure to render medical care and (Count I) failure to intervene; the officers appealed limited to qualified immunity.
- The Third Circuit affirmed denial of qualified immunity on the failure-to-render-medical-care claim (right clearly established in these circumstances) but held qualified immunity applies to the failure-to-intervene claim and remanded that claim to be dismissed as to the officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualified immunity — failure to render medical care (Fourteenth Amendment) | Thomas: officers knew or should have known ingestion posed a serious risk and were deliberately indifferent by taking him to booking rather than hospital. | Officers: they did not witness ingestion, Thomas denied ingestion and showed no overt distress; prison medical staff cleared him. | Court: Denied qualified immunity. Allegations plausibly show a serious medical need and deliberate indifference; right to medical care after oral narcotic ingestion was clearly established or obvious. |
| Qualified immunity — failure to intervene (Fourteenth Amendment) | Thomas: officers who observed risk and failed to intervene should be liable for failing to prevent denial of medical care. | Officers: no recognized constitutional duty to intervene to prevent medical-care violations; even if recognized, not clearly established. | Court: Granted qualified immunity. Third Circuit has not recognized a right to intervene in the medical-care context; remand with instruction to dismiss that claim as to the officers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976) (Eighth Amendment protects prisoners’ serious medical needs)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (1989) (state’s failure to protect from private harm does not generally violate due process absent custody/state-created danger)
- Natale v. Camden Cnty. Corr. Facility, 318 F.3d 575 (3d Cir. 2003) (deliberate indifference standard for detainees/prisoners’ medical claims)
- Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst. Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987) (serious medical need defined and examples of deliberate indifference)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001) (qualified immunity framework and clearly established rights analysis)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (plaintiff must show clearly established law for qualified-immunity denial)
- Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002) (general constitutional rules can clearly establish unlawful conduct in novel factual settings)
- Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) (obviousness can negate need for closely analogous precedent to deny qualified immunity)
- Mack v. Yost, 63 F.4th 211 (3d Cir. 2023) (discusses degree of specificity required to clearly establish constitutional rights)