James Howard WILLIAMS, Executor of the Estate of Julian Vaughn Williams, Appellee, v. Kenton KELSO, Lieutenant, Chief Jail Administrator; John Kopp, Book-In Officer; Mental Health Risk Retention Group; Counseling Associates; Andrea Becker, M.S.; Peter Edwards, M.D., Appellants.
Nos. 99-1272, 99-2529
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Jan. 27, 2000
Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied March 23, 2000.
201 F.3d 1060
During the hearing on the motion to recuse, Porous‘s counsel Alfred Edwall was asked if a reasonable person, a spectator or a juror, who sat and watched throughout the litigation would feel that there had been an impropriety or appearance of impropriety on the part of the court. He answered “no.” Edwall went on to state that the smoke and mirrors cоmment, along with a hearsay statement contained in an affidavit of one of the parties that an unnamed juror felt the court had indicated that Porous had received too much money in the first case, constituted an appearance of impropriety. When Porous‘s counsel Robert Tansey was asked by the court whether he interpreted the remark about smoke and mirrors to be a compliment on his advocacy abilities or a judgment on the merits of the case, he stated that he believed it to be the former. He further stated that he had decided not to be involved in the motion to recuse.
It is significant that we held in Porous II that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in refusing to allow Porous to add a claim for punitive damages. 173 F.3d at 1118. We pointed out that Porous‘s claim for punitive damages was inconsistent with the jury‘s verdict which specifically found that Pall‘s actions were not willful and done in bad faith, and that it had not acted with actual malice. With respect to the ruling on the counterclaims, we held in Porous III that, as a matter of law, Porous‘s malicious prosecution claim was fatally undermined by the district court‘s ruling on Porous‘s motion for judgment as a matter of law. 186 F.3d at 1080.
We conclude that the appeal in this case of the imposition of sanctions against Porous and its counsel was frivolous.
By this opinion we give notice to the parties that the court will consider whether damages and costs should be awarded to Pall for the cost of defending a frivolous appeal with respect to the sanctions issue, as well as the other issues in this case. Within twenty days from receipt of the court‘s opinion, the parties shall file with the court letter briefs not to exceed five pages addressing this issue. Counsel for Pall should include an additional exhibit substantiating the amount of costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in defense of this appeal, with a specific allocation as to the time spent on the sanction order in this court.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Michael Rainwater, Little Rock, AR, argued (Michelle Banks Odum, on the brief), for Appellants.
Paul J. James, Little Rock, AR, argued, for Appellee.
Before: RICHARD S. ARNOLD, WELLFORD1, and BEAM, Circuit Judges.
WELLFORD, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Andrea Becker, a CA psychologist, performed a screening and mental health evaluation of Williams around 8:00 a.m. on July 26. Thereafter, defendant Peter Edwards, M.D., a psychiatrist, consulted with Becker, who deemed Williams to be suffering from intermittent psychosis, and she devised a provisional treatment plan, including separation at jail and placement in a detoxification program. It should be noted that there is disagreement between Becker and Edwards regarding the latter‘s recommendation; Edwards claims he advised hospitalization, monitoring, and checking vitаl signs every four to six hours. For purposes of summary judgment the district court assumed that Becker gave instructions at approximately 11:00 a.m. on the 26th for the jail to isolate Williams, have a nurse check his vital signs, and return him to the emergency room if his blood pressure increased. Williams was isolated but his vital signs were never checked in the nearly seven hours between Becker‘s instructions and Williams’ death. According to the district court judge, “plaintiff does not allege that the FCDF ever received instructions to watch Williams at all times.” Nonetheless, FCDF personnel observed Williams throughout the day on the 26th, including around 5:40 p.m. when FCDF Chief Administrator Lieutenant Kenton Kelso spoke with Williams. At approximately 5:45 p.m. Kelso returned to Williams’ cell to transport him to the detoxification facility that had informed Becker, around 5:00 p.m., of an availability for Williams; however, Kelso found Williams unconscious and immediately had medics alerted and began performing C.P.R. Williams was pronounced dead on the evening of the 26th, and his death, caused by asphyxiation on toilet paper he lodged in his throat, was classified as suicide.
The two separate appeals considered herein were consolidated for argu-
In case number 99-2529 plaintiff cross-appeals from the district court‘s summary judgment granted to defendants on the
I. NO. 2529
We first discuss the appeal by рlaintiff on the summary judgment granted defendants on the cruel and inhuman treatment claim, regarding failure to give medical treatment in case of a known serious risk. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. See Buckley v. Rogerson, 133 F.3d 1125, 1126 (8th Cir.1998). We examine the facts in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Essentially, we must determine whether there is a material fact or question of law that would preclude summary judgment. Plaintiff concedes that the burden rests upon him to show such material fact or question of law when qualified immunity is claimed, as in this case, by defendants. See Webb v. Lawrence County, 144 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548). Plaintiff‘s burden, then, on his federal claim of cоnstitutional deliberate indifference under
Plaintiff contends “that there are inconsistent facts regarding the only issue in this case—Julian Vaughn Williams’ medically prescribed treatment.” There is a factual dispute as to whether Becker gave jail officials, specifically Kopp, instructions to check his vital signs.3 The
Plaintiff, in his brief, “contends that the jailors’ state of mind is a factual issue for the jury to decide.” However, the law requires that plaintiff make a showing of subjective awareness by the prison officials of a “substantial risk” of “serious harm” to a prisoner in order to establish an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference cause of action, Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828, 114 S.Ct. 1970 (1994) (emphasis added), and we determine liability under the standard enumerated in light of defendant prison officials’ demonstrated “attitudes and conduct” after the July 26 injury suffered by Williams. Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 36, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993). In this case, plaintiff has demonstrated no state of mind of Kelso or Kopp that is “more blameworthy than negligence.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970. Under Kelso‘s supervision, prison officials gave Williams his medication (Dilantin); placed him in the misdemeanor section of the jail; regularly observed him; when he was injured, had him examined by a hospital, a psychologist, and a psychiatrist; and were in the process of transferring him to a treatment center when the suicide occurred. Plaintiff did not show any “reckless disregard” of a known substantial risk on Kelso‘s or Kopp‘s part. Id. at 836, 114 S.Ct. 1970.
The only contention of deliberate indifference is that vital signs were not checked for a period of over six hours. It is true that plaintiff points to expert medical testimony that it is very important to follow medical instructions in this regard; such directions are “essential.” We assume that this is the case, but it was not error to determine this oversight (contested factually) to be negligence and short of deliberate indifference as а matter of law. At best, plaintiff‘s proof in this appeal amounts to negligent conduct, not deliberate or willful conduct on Kopp‘s or Kelso‘s part. Plaintiff did not demonstrate in this record “that prison officers actually knew of [serious medical needs] but deliberately disregarded those needs.” Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1239 (8th Cir.1997). Williams gave no overt indication that he was a suicide risk from our examination of the record. As expressed in Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 828, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), the plaintiff must show that the prison officials intentionally ignored “a substantial risk of serious harm to an inmate” to maintain a constitutional claim under the Eighth Amendment. The state of mind required is “more blameworthy than negligence.” Id. at 835, 114 S.Ct. 1970. Specifically, Farmer indicated that careless diagnosis or treatment of known “serious medical needs of prisoners” is insufficient. Id. (emphasis added).
We are persuaded that neither defendant was demonstrated to be “deliberately indifferent” to detainee Williams’ rights. See Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301, 303 (8th Cir.1995). A four-hour delay in medical treatment of a prisoner who had been repeatedly assaulted (unknown at the time by defendant prison officials) was held not to constitute deliberate indifference as contended by the minor prisoner in Hill v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center, 40 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir.1994). There was no sufficient showing as to Kopp or Kelso that their actions with respect to segregating Williams or giving him medical treatment on July 26, after the early morning episode, were obdurate, wanton, or deliberate in any failure to supply treatment for a known serious medical need. See Whit-ley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986). Both defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and summary judgment on plaintiff‘s claim.
We find no case which supports plaintiff‘s position of a
It was within the sound discretion for the district court to dismiss without prejudice with a right to refile in state court the separate medical negligence and wrongful death claims against defendants Mental Health Risk Retention Group, Counseling Associates, Inc., Andrea Becker, and Peter Edwards. These claims arise under Arkansas tort law and involve “distinct questions of law.” We conclude, contrary to plaintiff‘s position, that while facts in the case against the jail defendants are intertwined with the facts of the medical malpractice claims, the two causes of action are independent and essentially separаte. They are not, and we do not treat them as the “same case or controversy,” though consolidated for purposes of appeal.
II. NO. 1272
The district court declined to grant summary judgment to Kopp and Kelso for failure initially to segregate Williams based upon their failure to “supervise or train their employees and implement necessary policy for the obvious needs of its detainees,” not referring Williams for a mental examination at the outset. The district court was in error in reaching this conclusion that there was an obvious need based upon the facts in this record. Seсond, neither defendant may be held liable in a
Defendants claim qualified immunity, but the district court denied the defense, stating:
[T]he motion for summary judgment should be, and hereby is, denied at this time with regard to plaintiff‘s
§ 1983 claim against Kelso and Kopp alleging deliberate indifference to Williams’ safety based on his initial placement with other inmates. Kopp‘s own statement, and the statements of other inmates, support plaintiff‘s claim that Kopp knew Williams was disoriented and confused, with intervening periods of coherency, upon booking in at the FCDC on July 22nd. The Court finds that plaintiff has set forth sufficient proof to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Kopp was deliberately indifferent to plaintiff‘s constitutional rights by failing to segregate him from the general population upon booking in. See Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301 (1995) (to rise to level of constitutional deprivation, official must know of the excessive risk of harm and consciously disregard the risk). Although, the FCDC has policy in place addressing the classification and separation of inmates when there is asuspected medical or mental problem, plaintiff has also raised a genuine issue of material faсt with regard to his claim that Kelso failed to adequately train officers to carry out this policy. The Court questions whether plaintiff can establish that any failure by Kelso and Kopp in this respect caused or contributed to the ultimate injury in this case, Williams’ death by suicide; however, the record has not been developed on this point.
We find Randle v. Parker, 48 F.3d 301 (8th Cir.1995), the only case cited in support of the district court‘s denial of summary judgment to defendants Kopp and Kelso, not to constitute authority for its action. Randle accurately set forth the standard for determining deliberate indifference of jail officials: “the plaintiff is required to show that ‘the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his constitutional rights, either because they actually intended to deprive him of some right, or because they acted with reckless disregard of his right to be free from violent attacks by fellow inmates.‘” Randle, 48 F.3d at 303 (quoting Andrews v. Siegel, 929 F.2d 1326, 1330 (8th Cir.1991)). Randle decided that a supervisory official could not be held liable for other person‘s misconduct absent any “sufficient personal involvement” or “tacit authorization by him of the conduct complained of.” Id. (citing Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1376 (8th Cir.1993)). Under this standard we believe that as supervisors, both Kopp and Kelso were entitled to qualified immunity.
Quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), Randle noted the following required subjective knowledge on the part of a prison official must be established for such defendant to be deemed deliberately indifferent:
a prison official cannot be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.
Randle, 48 F.3d at 304 (quoting 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970). Under this standard, Randle reversed a finding of
This court has discussed the requisite subjective knowledge requirement of Farmer in light of known conditions “posing a substantial risk” or “an excessive risk to inmate health or safety.” Webb v. Lawrence County, 144 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir.1998); see also Jensen v. Clarke, 73 F.3d 808, 810 (8th Cir.1996). Plaintiff has failed to establish either defendant was guilty of constitutional violations as to initial treatment of Williams or with respect to taking his vital signs. Either or both may have been negligent, but such an oversight or mistake is not sufficient to make out a constitutional claim.
Plaintiff‘s reliance upon Finney v. Mabry, 534 F.Supp. 1026 (E.D.Ark.1982), is misplaced. The district court in Finney merely held that Arkansas jails must provide mental health care in “certain cases” involving “the most severely mentally disturbed” inmates. Id. at 1037 (emphasis added). Judge Eisele held also that those inmates with mental and emotional conditions requiring temporary mental health care can be placed in the general jail population. See id. We cannot say that the Eighth Amendment in this case required defendants to recognize Williams at the outset of his jail stay to be a “most severely mentally disturbed” person. That there was no written detoxification plan at the jail was not causative for any substantial injury suffered by Williams before he received medical and psychological treatment. On July 26 Becker described Williams as “going through sоme type of psychosis” and heard and observed noth-
Defendant Kopp
Plaintiff contends that the failure properly to classify and separate Williams initially due to his observable condition was of constitutional magnitude, and that this alleged violation under
the second shift officer, actually made the decision about cell assignment of Williams, who spent some minutes yelling and swearing in the admitting area. Kopp testified that many detainees engage in this conduct: “[h]e was not a special case,” in his opinion formed after only a very short contact with Williams.5 Kopp testified that the booking officer in this case may require some time to make a decision to decide whether a detainee were acting significantly abnormally to require special treatment.
For purposes of summary judgment we assume Kopp did not relay his detailed observations of Williams to the actual booking officer. Giving plaintiff the benefit of reasonable inferences from the evidence, we find no basis for the
Defendant Kelso
What we have stated with respect to Kopp‘s entitlement to summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim also applies to defendant Kelso. The complaint averred as to Kelso: “The trial court was correct in finding that material issues of fact remain regarding whether Kopp perceived a substantial risk, whether Kelso properly trained thе FCDF employees to perceive such a risk and whether the failure to segregate Mr. Williams and refer him to a mental health professional resulted in his injuries and ultimate death.” Plaintiff faults Kelso for failure to train “to identify, monitor, and refer for mental evaluations detainees exhibiting abnormal behavior,” and for having “no written detoxification plan.” The district court found that FCDF had some policy in place, not in writing, for detoxification of inmates; plaintiff contends that this finding was clearly erroneous, and that “Kenton Kelso abdicated his duty to Julian Vaughn Williams by consciously disregarding the risk attendant to inmates suffering from alcohol withdrawal.” We find no error in the district court‘s finding that Kelso “had a policy in place addressing the classification and segregation of inmates when there is a suspected medical or mental problem.” Kopp, the jailer, had training with respect to Arkansas jail policies generally. The failure to train claim under the facts of this case does not rise to the level of a deliberate indifference constitutional violation. There was no showing of a pattern or practice by supervisors at the jail in failing to segregate and bringing about serious harm to inmates оr detainees. Bolin v. Black, 875 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir.1989), a case relied upon by plaintiff
The standard by which this court judges the conduct of defendants Kopp and Kelso is whether they “acted with reckless disregard” of any known danger to Williams. Mooreman v. Sargent, 991 F.2d 472, 474 (8th Cir.1993). Under the record before the district court neither defendant intended to deprive Williams of any constitutional right or act with “such reckless disregard.” Id. at 474 (citing Branchcomb v. Brewer, 669 F.2d 1297, 1298 (8th Cir.1982)). Plaintiff failed to make a showing of a known “pervasive risk of harm” to Williams by reason of initial failure to segregate or to check vital signs during the afternoon that Williams committed suicide while awaiting transportation to a hospital. Mooreman v. Sargent, 991 F.2d 472, 474 (8th Cir.1993); see also Andrews v. Siegel, 929 F.2d 1326, 1330 (8th Cir.1991).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court‘s summary judgment to the