322 F. Supp. 3d 1205
D. Utah2018Background
- Plaintiff Maguire was an inmate who experienced a ‘‘man down’’ medical event (believed seizure) on the night of June 15–16; medical staff evaluated him and permitted him to put his mattress on the floor.
- Maguire later alleged that during hourly cell counts after the man-down call he repeatedly asked the counting officer to call medical and that those requests were ignored and not documented.
- Maguire identified Sergeant Jerry Miller as one of the counting officers (John Doe #5) and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference.
- Sgt. Miller moved for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity and challenging the admissibility of Maguire’s affidavit (proffered to a licensing board) as hearsay under the residual exception.
- The court excluded Maguire’s affidavit under Fed. R. Evid. 807, finding trustworthiness, alternative sources, and justice factors unmet and noting conflicts with other record evidence.
- On the remaining record the court concluded Miller responded appropriately during the man-down call, had no evidence of knowledge of a later serious need, and thus was not deliberately indifferent; summary judgment granted and case closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Maguire affidavit under Rule 807 residual hearsay exception | Affidavit should be admitted as trustworthy and necessary to show repeated requests for medical at hourly counts | Affidavit is hearsay, lacks circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, contradicted by record, and its contents could have been obtained at deposition | Court excluded the affidavit under Rule 807 (not sufficiently trustworthy, not more probative than other evidence, and admission would not serve justice) |
| Whether Sgt. Miller acted with deliberate indifference (Eighth Amendment) | Miller was present for counts and ignored repeated pleas for medical care after the man-down event | Miller attended and followed med-tech instructions during the man-down call, had no knowledge of subsequent requests, and did not work past 10:00 p.m. | Court held no admissible evidence Miller was consciously aware of a substantial risk and disregarded it; no deliberate indifference found |
| Whether delay/denial of care by custody staff can create liability (gatekeeper theory) | Custody officers who deny or delay access to care can be liable if they intentionally do so | Miller contends he did not deny or delay care and followed medical instructions; no evidence he interfered with treatment | Court applied established gatekeeper standard but found record lacks proof Miller intentionally denied or delayed care |
| Qualified immunity availability | N/A (plaintiff alleges constitutional violation) | Miller asserts qualified immunity because no constitutional violation or clearly established right shown | Court granted qualified immunity because there was no constitutional violation; thus it did not reach clearly established prong |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (court may address either prong of qualified immunity first)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (scope of qualified immunity; protects all but plainly incompetent or knowing violators)
- Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard: conscious disregard of substantial risk)
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment requires deliberate indifference to serious medical needs)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (qualified immunity two-step analysis)
- Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (objective and subjective prongs of Eighth Amendment claim)
- Sealock v. Colorado, 218 F.3d 1205 (definition of "serious medical need" for Eighth Amendment purposes)