Vivian Jackson v. Preston West, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9202

Background

Darius James, a pretrial detainee at Marion County Jail, committed suicide on October 14, 2007, by hanging in Charlie Foxtrot; he was 22.
James had multiple mental-health contacts: suicide screening on June 30 (assigned to suicide prevention), July 1 psychological exam (denied current suicidal ideation), a July 6 explicit suicidal threat that resulted in placement on suicide precaution until July 10, and intermittent medical requests thereafter.
Several non-party medical/mental-health staff controlled placement and release from suicide watch; security officers executed housing moves and responded to incidents.
Plaintiff (James’s mother / estate rep) sued ten officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due-process violations (deliberate indifference to suicide risk); three officers had summary judgment previously; seven officers (Captains Burnett, Forte; Corporals McEwan, West; Sgt. Ross; Officers Lavertue, Thorsberg) appealed the denial of summary judgment.
The core legal question is whether each officer had the requisite subjective knowledge of a substantial suicide risk such that qualified immunity does not apply.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers were deliberately indifferent to James’s suicide risk (subjective knowledge requirement)	James repeatedly warned officers (including “super suicidal” statements) and housing/placement practices put him at risk	None of the seven defendants had subjective knowledge of a strong likelihood of suicide; isolated incidents or aggressive behavior do not suffice	Reversed: no genuine issue that any of the seven defendants had subjective knowledge of a strong suicide risk; qualified immunity applies to each
Sufficiency of another inmate’s declaration (Jean‑Pierre Francis) to create a factual dispute	The inmate declared that James told officers for weeks he would hurt himself, which contradicts defendants’ testimony	Declaration is vague, names no officers, and doesn’t tie knowledge to these specific defendants	Declaration too cursory and unspecific to create genuine issue as to these defendants’ subjective knowledge
Reliance on housing location/movement and cell visibility as circumstantial evidence of knowledge	Frequent moves and placement in remote/upper-level cells show defendants knew risk and failed to secure observation	Housing logs show routine transfers/bed changes; no evidence any defendant knew cell placement created a particular risk	Housing moves alone do not show any individual defendant knew James posed a strong suicide risk
Use of expert report to establish defendants’ knowledge/deliberate indifference	Expert opined James repeatedly advised staff he was suicidal and security failed to protect him	Report lacks specificity about what each individual defendant knew and largely blames mental‑health staff	Expert report’s general conclusions ("across the board") are insufficient to show subjective knowledge by each defendant

Key Cases Cited

Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2005) (pretrial detainees’ due-process right to mental-health care and protection from self-harm parallels Eighth Amendment standards)
McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 1999) (deliberate indifference requires subjective knowledge, circumstantial evidence may suffice)
Snow ex rel. Snow v. City of Citronelle, Ala., 420 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing defendants without knowledge from one who had specific reports and did nothing)
Burnette v. Taylor, 533 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2008) (each defendant judged by what that person knew; testimony from other inmates must be specific to overcome defendants’ lack of knowledge)
Edwards v. Gilbert, 867 F.2d 1271 (11th Cir. 1989) (prisoner-suicide § 1983 claims require deliberate indifference)
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity standard for discretionary government functions)