The Estate of Marquette F. Cummings Jr. v. Warden Carter Davenport
906 F.3d 934
11th Cir.2018Background
- Inmate Marquette Cummings was stabbed in prison, airlifted to UAB Hospital, declared in critical condition, and removed from life support the next day; he died after withdrawal of life support.
- Warden Carter Davenport allegedly told hospital staff not to take “heroic measures,” instructed Dr. Sherry Melton to enter a do-not-resuscitate order, and authorized removal of life support despite family objections.
- Cummings’s mother, Angela Gaines, was present and contested the hospital’s statements that the decision was the State’s (the warden’s) and not the family’s.
- The estate sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments) and asserted related state-law claims.
- The district court dismissed most defendants and claims but denied Davenport qualified immunity on the deliberate-indifference claim, concluding Davenport had not shown his actions were within his discretionary authority under Alabama law.
- On interlocutory appeal, the Eleventh Circuit accepted the complaint’s allegations as true and addressed whether Davenport met his initial burden to show discretionary authority (a prerequisite to qualified immunity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davenport met his initial burden to show he acted within his discretionary authority so he could invoke qualified immunity | Estate: Davenport had no authority to make end-of-life decisions; his directives violated statutory scheme and amounted to deliberate indifference | Davenport: As warden he supervises inmate care and thus had discretionary authority over medical decisions for inmates | Held: Davenport failed to show discretionary authority — Alabama’s Natural Death Act does not authorize wardens to enter DNR orders or withdraw life support absent court-appointed guardian status; qualified immunity denied |
| Whether appellate court can reach merits (whether complaint states a deliberate-indifference claim) | Estate: Complaint sufficiently alleges deliberate indifference | Davenport: Complaint fails to state a claim | Held: Court lacked jurisdiction to decide merits on interlocutory appeal once it affirmed denial of qualified immunity; merits must await final judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference standard)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (qualified immunity as immunity from suit)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for pleadings on appeal from denial of qualified immunity)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (qualified immunity protects all but plainly incompetent violations)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U.S. 765 (interlocutory appealability of qualified-immunity denials)
- Harbert Int’l, Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1998) (defendant’s initial burden to show actions were within discretionary authority)
- Lenz v. Winburn, 51 F.3d 1540 (11th Cir. 1995) (use of state law to define official authority)
- Holloman ex rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2004) (framework for assessing discretionary action)