*1 district courts Great Earth directives to that, requires Great Earth
and Javitch. clauses, arbitration “the evi-
invalidate the be] such that a presented [must
dence finder of fact could conclude
reasonable agreement to arbitrate ex-
that no valid
specifies
ists.” compelling unwilling par- “[b]efore arbitrate,
ty engage the court must in a to determine
limited review whether the arbitrable; meaning that a valid
dispute
agreement to arbitrate exists between the
parties.”
(emphasis
ed).
Ill reasons, foregoing judgment
For reversed,
of the district court is and this
cause is remanded for a determination of clauses, analyzed
whether the arbitration
independently agree- from the account
ments, are valid. Ferguson WEAVER,
Dianna individual-
ly and as Administratrix Estate Stephen Weaver, Lamont Plaintiff-
Appellee, Owen,
Warren SHADOAN Victor capacities
their individual and official City
as officers of of Oliver
Springs, Depart- Tennessee Police
ment, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 01-5656.
United of Appeals, States Court
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Oct. 2002. Aug.
Decided and Filed *2 questions
The district court found that material fact remained to be determined. record, carefully reviewing After drawing all reasonable inferences in favor Plaintiff, we find that Weaver’s Fourth *3 Eighth rights and were not (argued Moneier Herbert S. and Therefore, violated. we REVERSE the (briefed), briefed), Bailey Law Of- Ursula ruling by the district court and REMAND Knoxville, Moneier, TN, fices of Herbert S. grant summary for the court to judgment Plaintiff-Appellee. capaci- their individual briefed), Duffy (argued John C. and ties.
Watson, Reeves, Knoxville, TN, Hollow & BACKGROUND
for Defendants-Appellants. Shadoan, 18,1997, On October an officer DAUGHTREY, and Before: SILER years police experi- with over fourteen ALDRICH, Judges; Circuit District ence, patrol was on Oliver Ten- Springs, Judge.* nessee, when he observed an unfamiliar Futtrell, vehicle at the residence of David SILER, J., opinion delivered the of the cooperated individual who with Shadoan court, ALDRICH, D.J., joined. in which during burglary investigation a at Futt- DAUGHTREY, 413-415), (pp. J. delivered rell’s residence a few months earlier. Sha- separate opinion concurring a in part and doan was having aware Futtrell was dissenting part. trouble with some black men. Because just Shadoan had seen Futtrell at OPINION Market, Country Town and and thus knew SILER, Judge. Circuit home, that Futtrell not at was he became suspicious of the unfamiliar vehicle. He Defendants, Officers Warren Shadoan then man walking observed black out of and (collectively, Victor Owen the “Offi- the front door of Futtrell’s residence and cers”), appeal the district court’s denial of enter into the vehicle in question. their summary judgment motion for based qualified on immunity brought on claims approached get Shadoan the vehicle to pursuant § number, to 42 Dianna plate U.S.C. the license but vehicle (“Plaintiff’), did, Ferguson Weaver Adminis- did plate. not have license It how- son, ever, tratrix Stephen of the Estate of her have dark tinted windows with a (“Weaver”), Lamont Weaver temporary tag filed civil behind the rear window. rights alleging action that Weaver was ar- allegedly difficulty reading Shadoan cause, rested without probable and that the temporary tag because of the dark deliberately Nonetheless, Officers were indifferent window tint. Shadoan Weaver, to the serious medical needs of thought temporary tag expired, was who died in custody voluntarily bearing after the date 10-17-97. The vehicle ingesting a lethal dose of cocaine and then then turned into and stopped the Town repeatedly denying ingestion Country of the Believing and Market. that the drugs and refusing medical treatment. tag expired, was that the window tint was * Aldrich, Ohio, designation. The Honorable sitting by Ann United States Judge District for the Northern District of lawfully displayed due to the dark, may there have been was dark and that too residence, Futtrell activity at the tinted windows. criminal into the Town his cruiser drove Shadoan questioning, Some time this and turned on his Country Market and arrived on the scene.1 Weaver then Owen vehicle. stopped behind the lights blue and presence left Officers’ went into and met Sha- exited his vehicle Country Town Market. During in- the car. Weaver at the rear of doan time, Booker, questioned Shadoan who being stopped why as to he was quired explained that the reason he was at the it was because of indicated Shadoan residence to collect Futtrell some expired tag. responded the car’s money Cooper. Cooper from David out tag expired, pointing was not that his engaged known Shadoan to be in the *4 Upon in a alleged 7 was fact 9. that marijuana of and distribution cocaine out examination, confirmed Shadoan closer home, his which was located near the of tag expired. had not Shadoan that provided Futtrell residence. Booker also why passen- and his then asked Weaver with that Shadoan information was not Booker, Futtrell were at the ger, William entirely provided by consistent with that that he residence. Weaver first stated presented Weaver. He also the Officers up nearby Booker from Oak picked had with false identification. Clinton, Tennessee, Ridge, gone had to Coincidentally, this during questioning, Tennessee, two were now on and that the Futtrell came out of the Town and Coun- Ridge. Shadoan way their back to Oak try Market. The Officers asked Futtrell out, however, that the location of pointed regarding what he knew either or Weaver Futtrell’s residence was inconsistent with that Booker. Futtrell told the Officers that story. this then stated Weaver neither Booker had busi- Weaver nor and he were did not know what Booker being they at residence and that ness his During at Futtrell’s residence. this doing probably looking Cooper for the resi- allegedly Weaver was becom- questioning, state- dence to sell cocaine. Futtrell’s increasingly claims ing nervous. Shadoan ments, inability in to addition Weaver’s rubbing his hands to- Weaver at Futtrell’s resi- explain presence his clutching shuffling his arms and gether, dence, suspicion raised Shadoan’s behavior, conjunc- his feet. Weaver’s in drug activity.2 was involved Weaver suspicions his raised responses, tion with fifteen minutes Shadoan, Approximately ten to According to even for Shadoan. Weaver for stop, into the Shadoan asked though temporary tag expired, had to search his automobile stop permission the traffic over. he did not consider consent- temporary tag person.3 appears It Weaver It was his view that Owen, investigation police of a patrol Springs prior in a also on for the Oliver residence, burglary cooperated Department, at his and had Police heard Shadoan announce drive-by shooting. investigation stop police radio and de- in an of his traffic over the Apparently, it is cided to assist Shadoan. customary Springs police officers to for Oliver alleges affidavit indi- 3.Plaintiff that Booker’s busy. assist one another if not request permis- that Shadoan did not cates affidavit, Booker’s sion to search Weaver. however, did I only no time ”[a]t had no states 2. Plaintiff asserts that Shadoan basis Weav- ask Lamonte infor- hear either of the officers to believe that Futtrell was a reliable Weaver or the er search either Lamonte that Futtrell's was reliable. mant or Therefore, contrary posi- to Plaintiff's point factually record car.” This inaccurate. The tion, not create a statement does cooperated with the Booker's shows that Futtrell Shadoan, According get fingers mouth. tried to his ed to the search. Shadoan mouth, began clenching simultaneously while point, at this Weaver Weaver’s tell- very ner- unclenching acting ing his fists and him not to swallow whatever it was he vous. had. then appeared Weaver to swallow something. a pat-down conducted search of
Shadoan and noticed a in one of lump Weaver placed Weaver the back of pockets, which he believed to be reported Owen’s cruiser. He was in custo- five six the size of rocks of crack co- 5:10 dy p.m. retracing path at After of Shadoan, According caine.4 when asked chase, the Officers discovered a piece lump, about the Weaver stated that it was cellophane wrapper, which believed At paper.” point, “wad of Shadoan contained a residue with the appearance considered Weaver to be under arrest— crack cocaine. Later lab tests conducted although he did not state so. Shadoan by the Tennessee Bureau Investigation empty pockets, then asked identify did not the substance as crack suddenly time run- began which cocaine. ning from the scene. The chased stayed Booker the car and, bystander, help with *5 capture. chase and charged He was with custody. took him into Springs The Oliver public charged intoxication. Weaver was Police Department log radio reflects that evading with arrest and drug possession. stop the traffic of Weaver and Booker transported Both men were in Owen’s p.m., pursuit occurred at 4:54 with the foot Springs cruiser the Oliver Police De- occurring p.m. at 4:58 partment, in placed where Weaver was Weaver, After handcuffing the Officers holding cell. There sug- is no evidence to pockets then checked Weaver’s but found gest that the approximately forty- drugs. no Shadoan asked Weaver where five minutes to one hour that Weaver was were, drugs the but Weaver did not re- station, at the any Officers noticed spond. As the began walking in change Weaver’s condition. cruiser, Weaver back to the noticed According Lowe, to Police Chief appeared that Weaver something to have agreement in between Springs his mouth. Neither Officer saw the Oliver Po- place anything Department in his mouth. lice and Morgan County Weaver then re- request refused Shadoan’s open quired transported both men to be to the effect, dispute factual way eliminates it. Shadoan had no to tell what was in Mr. —it merely alleges Booker that he has no knowl- pocket.” conclusory Weaver's This state- edge of the Officers’ conversation with Weav- ment, made, assuming even it was does not Thus, regarding er consent. Plaintiff has not support an inference Shadoan did not presented any evidence to refute Shadoan’s identify rocks of crack cocaine in Weaver’s assertions that he received Weaver's consent pocket. present Chief Lowe was not at the person to search his and automobile. Also, scene of the Weaver arrest. Plaintiff has not directed this court to evidence that supplies 4. Plaintiff an affidavit from Fermín Shadoan made a statement to Chief Lowe Torre, De Springs La a former Oliver dis- indicating he had fabricated his as patcher, which states that later on in the Therefore, presence to the of crack cocaine. evening, after the entire facts of this case had possibly Chief Lowe cannot know what Sha- out, Lowe, played Grant Police Chief of the doan felt and what conclusions Shadoan drew Springs Department, Oliver Police stated that pat from his down of Weaver. "Shadoan could not have known what the lump pocket was in Weaver’s because Officer Therefore, paramedic had County years Weaver Weaver. One twelve Morgan Jail.5 again placed were Owen’s of experience; years. and Booker other had ten transportation Morgan cruiser Although the Officers had not seen Weav- pulling out of County began As Owen Jail. ingest any drugs, requested er Shadoan station, the Offi- Weaver asked what that Weaver be assessed for “possible piece with the going to do cers drug reaction overdose.” It appears and/or found at the ar- that had been cellophane paramedics neither of called to the the evi- replied rest scene. Owen experience treating scene had with some- lab, and that if dence would be sent to Also, one who had swallowed cocaine. ap- positive, charges the results came back parently, paramedic there is no protocol Owen, According to likely be filed. would responding Generally, to the situation. immediately point started “[a]t paramedics expected would not be to know violently” having if he was shaking as ingested how to treat someone who had “seizure,” “slumped and then he became cocaine other than to contact medical con- testimony in the seat.” This over trol and induce perhaps help the individual Booker, supported by who stated later to vomit.6 [Weaver] his affidavit that “Lamonte be- Despite attempts by numerous paramed- gan get jerking sick and was the back ics, Weaver refused treatment. When p.m., cruiser.” At 6:42 police seat of go hospital, asked he wanted to approximately thirty-two one hour and “No, responded, go I want to custody, minutes after Weaver was jail, nothing. and I haven’t taken Leave requested an ambulance to come to Owen insisted, in me alone.” Weaver also front station to examine Weaver. Officers, presence of the of the that he had ambulance, waiting for the Shadoan While instance, any drugs. not swallowed For Although checked on Weaver’s condition. *6 paramedic one stated that re- Weaver eyes were closed and he was not “ ” ‘no,’ ‘no,’ ‘no,’ being to peatedly said responding questions, strong to he had a drugs. if ingested asked he had Booker’s breathing and he to be appeared heartbeat responses. affidavit confirms Weaver’s normally. separately by was assessed both Weaver Emergency The Medical Techni- that no paramedics, who found there was cians/paramedics arrived at the Oliver emergency According need for treatment. Springs Department Police and examined asserts, however, according died to tiff's claim that Weaver would not have Plaintiff provided by Ramsey, County an affidavit James N. had he been sent to the Anderson Jail. Attorney for the Seventh Ju- District General properly This issue is not before us District, dicial Weaver and Booker should not interlocutory appeal. Accordingly, we this gone Morgan County jail, have to the but decline to address it. instead, transferred to the should have been County appeared Jail and before an Anderson physician testimony absent of 6. The record is County Magistrate. The district Anderson regarding what treatment would have been alleged process due vio- court addressed this willing he to available to Weaver had been granted summary judgement lation and to all accept only evidence is it. Plaintiff’s medical The district court defendants on the issue. pharmacist, who stated that he would from assuming process that even a due viola- found tion, overdose, expect seizures with a cocaine and proximate “there is no cause between gas- treatment would include a that common alleged process denial of due and the lavage typically pump, stomach which tric or if Weaver had decedent’s death. Even Mr. hospital emergency performed in a must be go gone jail to another but refused to to the room. hospital, died.” he would no doubt have still "speculative” Plain- The court also found as leaving jail. was con- of for the Booker asserts that report, to the Weaver paramedic scious, alert, person, and oriented as to although he told Owen at least three times Despite apparently time.7 his place and that Weaver needed to be taken to the condition, paramedics good physical hospital, ignored requests Owen his and that there were seri- explained to Weaver to drive. Booker claims that continued in- swallowing drugs, to consequences ous jail, the time the cruiser arrived at the cluding death. walk, mumbling, Weaver was could not jail, had to be carried into the and was relayed paramedics then their as- generally jailers almost “out of it.” Two paramedics the Officers. The sessment to assisted out of the car and into the Weaver you see other “[i]f told them Owen, however, jail. ambulatory declined all, at call problems anything changes, Apparently, services for Weaver. Owen one According paramedic, us back.” to ill- Weaver, “faking” believed that Weaver was to monitor and told ness, a belief that he shared with some of immediately help contact for no- jailers. Weaver and Booker were then any changes Although ticed Weaver. thereafter, jail Shortly placed into cell. paramedics were informed Weav- Hamby, jailer the chief a certi- going transported jail, er was to be Teresa EMT, Owen, paramedics paged by that the fied who there is no indication was was action, objected boyfriend to this course of or recom- then her and now her husband.9 According Hamby, mended otherwise.8 Unable to force treat- she looked Weav- Weaver, upon paramedics ment left. rising er and noticed that his chest was falling and thus believed that Weaver p.m., proceeded At 7:00 Owen alone breathing. transport jail. and Booker to the point, custody At had been in Booker estimates Weaver was fifty jail for one hour and minutes. The jail twenty cell for fifteen to minutes approximately twenty twenty-five min- anyone before checked on him. The rec- Springs utes from the Oliver Police De- log ord approximately indicates that it was partment. p.m. jailers requested 7:39 when Owen Booker, to summon According began another ambulance for Weaver. get up request thirty-nine sick and throw within five minutes This minutes after *7 good signs. pu- approximately Weaver also had vital His medical center located fifteen pils light. equal and reactive to He was Morgan County miles from the Jail. Plaintiff post-dictal, meaning signs he exhibited no out, however, points that at the time of these symptoms of a seizure. He had normal facts, jail Department the had been found distentions, jugular thereby indicating vein investigation of Justice to be unconstitutional absence of severe heart abnormalities. He necessary adequate due to lack of medi- sounds, good had clear breath skin color and personnel. cal facilities and Plaintiff does not temperature. good capil- He normal had allege, though, refill, lary good/normal which means that knowledge Department's finding. of the change taking place. blood He also had trachea, normally a normal midline which (or alleges 9.Plaintiff at that the reason least gets misaligned lung on severe difficulties reasons) one of the main Weaver was trans- Furthermore, from trauma. Weaver had ported Morgan County to the Jail was so that movement and sensation in all four extremi- Hamby, girlfriend. Owen could meet The ties. support allegation. record does not this shows, instead, Springs record that Oliver 8. There is another ambulance in the service community required by Wartburg, small of officers were Chief Lowe to which is jail transport Morgan County where the is located. There is also a arrestees to the Jail. had first refused treatment parties from the will not defeat an otherwise paramedics Springs properly at the Oliver Po- supported motion for summary Department. lice The ambulance arrived judgment... .’’Anderson, 477 U.S. 247- later, by minutes which thirteen time (emphasis S.Ct. 2505 in original). Weaver had lost consciousness and was not questions Mixed of law and fact arrival, breathing. Upon paramedics are Mehra, reviewed de novo. Williams v. began to administer CPR on Weaver. (1999) (en banc). 186 F.3d A transported was then to the Roane facts, district court’s findings of ultimate Center, approximately Medical fifteen upon based application legal of princi Jail, Morgan County miles from the where facts, ples subsidiary subject are also pronounced he was dead. An autopsy per- de novo review. Id. formed on indicated that the cause ingestion death was of a lethal amount JURISDICTION of cocaine. motion, a separate Plaintiff
Plaintiff has sued Shadoan and Owen moved this court to dismiss the capacities their individual official un- Officers’ interlocutory appeal jurisdic- § for lack of der 42 U.S.C. 1983 and law. At state tion. Plaintiff argues appeal issue are district Plaintiffs claims court’s memorandum opinion that Weaver was arrested establishes proba- without genuine existence of issues of ble cause and that the material Officers were delib- fact. The district court found that erately indifferent “there Weaver’s serious a question of material fact with respect medical needs. The district court denied to whether the probable officers had summary judgment cause Officers on to arrest Mr. [possession Weaver for Eighth Plaintiffs Fourth and cocaine or evading a lawful arrest].” claims. With
regard to
Eighth
Amendment claim of
indifference,
STANDARD OF
deliberate
REVIEW
the district court
found that “[questions of material fact
grant
We review district court’s
remain to be
respect
determined with
summary judgment
Terry
de novo.
Barr
whether,
circumstances,
under the
those
Co.,
Sales
Inc.
Agency,
v. All-Lock
96 F.3d
two defendants showed deliberate indiffer-
Cir.1996).
In deciding a
ence
prisoner’s
to their
serious medical
motion,
summary judgment
we cannot
by failing
needs
steps
to take further
evidence,
weigh the
judge
credibility
safety
insure his
and whether that failure
witnesses, or determine the truth of the
may
proximate
have been a
cause of the
matter asserted.
Liberty
Anderson v.
prisoner’s
however,
death.”
appeal,
On
Inc.,
242, 255,
Lobby,
477 U.S.
106 S.Ct.
the Officers have asked us to assume as
must,
al of a claim difference, of law law, questions mixed are of is an issue it turns on extent Therefore, subsidiary the the fact. because within ‘final decision’ appealable of this purposes the in notwithstanding dispute facts are not § ... 1291 of meaning turns on a Mitchell v. this court’s “decision judgment.” appeal, a final absence of facts, 2806, 511, 530, alleged the question 105 S.Ct. of law: whether 472 Forsyth, U.S. (1985). recog- purpose, It is well show violation 411 admitted for this L.Ed.2d 86 “right appeal Id. law.” Seen clearly that a defendant’s of established nized not immunity does denial of qualified of court’s light, the denial this district court’s of the district a final order as re- phrasing immunity on the is qualified turn 61 Kukulinsky, We, Christophel § v. there- quired by order.” 28 U.S.C. Cir.1995). Therefore, (6th 479, case fore, jurisdiction 485 to decide this F.3d have district court’s reasons “regardless of the on the merits. may immunity, we qualified denying ... appeal jurisdiction over ANALYSIS
exercise
of law.”
questions
it
extent
raises
immunity
qualified
The doctrine of
1151,
McClellan, 101 F.3d
v.
Dickerson
acting within the
public
shields
officials
Cir.1996).
1157
duties from civil lia-
scope of their official
Fitzgerald,
v.
457 U.S.
bility. See Harlow
in our en
explained
have
As we
800, 818,
L.Ed.2d 396
102
73
S.Ct.
Williams,
a dis
there is
banc decision
immunity
“an
Qualified
is
immu-
fact and a
an ultimate
tinction between
than a mere defense
nity
suit rather
F.3d at 690.
or basic
186
subsidiary
fact.
from
immunity,
an absolute
liability;
and like
mixed issue of law
ultimate fact is
An
erroneously
if a case is
effectively
it is
lost
questions are treated
Id. Mixed
and fact.
Mitchell,
trial.”
go
permitted
questions.
factual
questions, not
legal
as
(emphasis
at
U.S.
S.Ct.
a defendant’s
Questions concerning
Id.
empha-
has
original).
Supreme
The
Court
or non-existence
conduct or
existence
immunity
questions
qualified
sized that
questions
are
of subsid
certain evidence
possible
“at
be resolved
the earliest
should
case, exam
Id. In this
iary or basic facts.
Katz,
stage
litigation.”
in the
Saucier
in
facts would
questions
of basic
ples
194, 201, 121 S.Ct.
533 U.S.
license
temporary
clude:
Was
(2001) (quoting Hunter v.
L.Ed.2d 272
tinted
behind his vehicle’s
plate placed
224, 227, 112 S.Ct.
Bryant, 502 U.S.
know
Did the Officers
rear window?
(1991)
curiam)). The
(per
407 1-5, lished” at the time of the events at issue. County Deputy John Does 174 Sheriff 809, Cir.1999). right clearly- In order for a F.3d Id. be 813 An ordinary established, right stop contours of the traffic “[t]he is more “akin to an investiga sufficiently must be clear that a reasonable tive detention rather than a custodial ar Hill, 258, rest.” United States official would understand what he is 195 F.3d (6th Cir.1999), 202, denied, 264 121 cert. doing right.” violates Id. at 528 U.S. 1176, 1207, 120 S.Ct. 145 inquiry S.Ct. 2151. The “must be under L.Ed.2d 1110 (2000). suspicion Reasonable light taken in of the is “more specific context of the hunch; than an case, ill-defined it not must be based general proposition.” as broad upon particularized 201, objective 121 basis Id. S.Ct. 2151. As the Court for suspecting particular person ... of explained, relevant dispositive inqui “[t]he Houston, activity.” criminal 174 F.3d at ry in determining right whether is clear (alterations (internal in original) quota ly it established is whether would be clear omitted). tions and citation requires It to a reasonable officer that his conduct was “ ‘specific which, and articulable facts tak unlawful the situation he confronted.” en together with rational 202, 121 inferences from Id. at S.Ct. 2151. facts, reasonably
those
warrant’ an investi
1. Fourth Amendment Claim
gatory stop.”
Ohio,
Id. (quoting Terry v.
1, 21,
1868,
392 U.S.
88 S.Ct.
20 L.Ed.2d
The district court concluded that be-
(1968)). Moreover,
suspi
reasonable
cause
Officers did not find
cocaine
cion “can arise from evidence that is less
captured following
after Weaver was
reliable than
might
required
what
be
attempted escape, probable cause to arrest
probable
show
cause.” Id.
did
exist. The district court
con-
also
that,
cluded
irrespective of Shadoan’s sub-
The existence of
suspicion
reasonable
jective
arrest,
belief regarding Weaver’s
must be
“totality
viewed
of the
objectively, Weaver was not aware that he
Erwin,
circumstances.” United States v.
under
arrest at the time that he fled
(6th Cir.1998)
(en banc),
155 F.3d
Officers, and, therefore,
from the
probable
denied,
cert
525 U.S.
119 S.Ct.
cause did not exist to
him
arrest
for evad-
(1999).
Police officers stop suspicion stop Shadoan had reasonable an individual investigation clearly have Weaver. The record indicates that reasonable person has registra Shadoan believed that Weaver’s committed a crime. Houston v. Clark tion improperly was either invalid or dis-
408 (iv) vehicle; windows, unfamiliar Weav- ing into an darkly tinted vio- behind
played
presence
his
inability
explain
registration
er’s
vehicle
Tennessee’s
lations
(v)
residence;
alleged
Weaver’s
§§ 55-4-
Futtrell’s
laws. T.C.A.
tinting
and window
therefore,
with
55-9-107(a). Shadoan,
which were inconsistent
plans,
travel
110,
(vi)
location;
ordinary traffic
Futtrell’s corrob-
conducting an
current
justified in
had no
and Booker
automobile.
oration that Weaver
stop of Weaver’s
(vii)
home;
Futtrell’s
at his
reason to be
stop
traffic
is
of the
“purpose
Once
were
and Booker
suggestion that Weaver
further
cannot be
a motorist
completed,
Cooper residence
looking for the
probably
something that occurred
unless
detained
(viii)
cocaine;
ner-
and
Weaver’s
to sell
to have
caused the officer
stop
demeanor. When viewed
vousness and
articulable
and
a reasonable
circumstances, the Officers
totality
Hill, 195
activity was afoot.”
criminal
and
justified
detaining
has rec
Supreme
The
Court
at 264.
F.3d
an investi-
to continue to conduct
Booker
“nervous,
is
evasive behavior
ognized
gative stop.
determining
reason
factor
pertinent
a
Wardlow,
v.
528
Illinois
suspicion.”
able
may
Terry stop
investigative
An
673,
124,
145 L.Ed.2d
119,
120 S.Ct.
U.S.
through the
a de
arrest
ripen into
facto
(2000).
v.
also United States
See
570
Hous
of time or the use of force.
passage
(6th Cir.1995) (ex
159,
Mesa,
62 F.3d
occurs,
ton,
a
409
(1983)
3517,
(per
S.Ct.
In the instant the Officers Shadoan’s see, dealings last with Weaver was did not knowledge, otherwise have at the Springs Oliver Police Station when ingested that Weaver cocaine. It is also paramedics the were first summoned to undisputed repeatedly denied assess Weaver. When Shadoan last saw swallowing any drugs. ap When Weaver Weaver, Weaver was alive and did not ill, to peared become the Officers immedi any signs show of illness. Based on these ately summoned the paramedics. par The undisputed facts, and our decision Wat- amedics were requested approximately .one kins, we reverse the district court’s denial thirty-two hour and minutes after Weaver qualified immunity for Officer Shadoan placed custody. was Plaintiff does not on Plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim. dispute Shadoan’s assertions that while ambulance, waiting for the he checked Owen, regard With to Plaintiff asserts Weaver’s heartbeat and breathing, both of that Owen exhibited deliberate indiffer- appeared which normal—and an indication ence toward Weaver when that Shadoan was transportation concerned for Weaver’s jail, Weaver to the he “only” 10. The dissent possible drugs noted that the would have been for Weaver to toss the destroying drugs means for drugs ground under the fleeing. on the as he was When tl suspect ingest circumstances was for path the Officers retraced the of Weaver’s drugs while in attempted the closet. 273 escape, they F.3d at 688 cellophane found a (Moore, J., dissenting). residue, wrapper drug-like facts of Watkins with a which clearly present Eighth a closer case for belonged an believed Although to Weaver. it is Amendment violation than the facts of the unclear wrapper belonged whether the Watkins, Weaver, stronger instant case. In sug recovery facts wrapper sup- their of the gested suspect ingested that the ports cocaine. inference the Officers believed Also, Watkins, jailers the officers and never that Weaver drugs along had discarded the Also, paramedics summoned the to assess wrapper. the sus with the there is no evidence pect while he was still suggest conscious. The offi that the Officers observed a white simply suspect's cers took denials of in substance in the area of Weaver’s mouth. gesting drugs at face value. In the instant signs Weaver also no exhibited as a —such outside, place the arrest pinkish of Weaver took frothy drug ingestion. drool—of Moreover, Watkins, police after he had fled from the and was out unlike the officers in sight logical for several paramedics seconds. The most Officers summoned to examine Weaver, means for Weaver to have discarded the transportation. who was cleared for subjec- or have the time, inference not draw an a second paramedics failed to call in a substantial tive belief that Weaver be- when Weaver to turn back failed Finally, harm.12 Owen’s of serious risk Plaintiff throwing up. falling over and gan for ambulance Weav- request for second deliber- acted with that Owen asserts also the first team minutes after thirty-nine er jailers told the he when ate indifference him examining had finished paramedics “faking.” that he believed was concerned suggests Owen disagree. We Owen could Although health. first called paramedics When in the an ambulance earlier have called went from station that Chief Jailer process, request did being symptoms to exhibiting seizure-like EMT, check on Hamby, a certified Weav- oriented, coherent, medically alert, short, find that did er. we Owen jail. on Based transportation cleared risk of disregard a substantial know and be unrea- it would not episode, first we Accordingly, serious harm Weaver. signifi- to discount for Owen sonable did not violate Weaver’s hold that Owen *14 symptoms second set of cance of Weaver’s rights. Because Amendment Eighth jail.11 to the transportation vi- rights were not constitutional Weaver’s earlier, foot at Also, had fled on Weaver wheth- olated, unnecessary to address it is Owen’s fear that Weav- the arrest scene. clearly established. The right the was er again flee is illness and then feign er could reversed on the is therefore district court Further, the indifference. regard not deliberate immunity with qualified issue of that Weaver was claim. Eighth believed that Owen Weaver’s fact an in- support does not faking his illness CONCLUSION acted with deliberate that Owen ference Eighth Amend- contrary, the Owen’s Fourth and To indifference. Therefore, not violated. rights ment suggest that he did “faking” statements liability give for delib- rise to analysis premised on an matter law dissent's is 11. The knowledge erate that indifference. assumption that Owen had According ingested drugs. to the dis- sent, prompt rejects medical that Owen had a belief “Owen’s failure seek 12. The dissent "faking” the condition his illness. In or advice when Weaver's that Weaver assistance view, "truly Owen believed Weav- constitutes deliberate indiffer- dissent’s deteriorated 'faking,' could have called ahead so response er was he it was an because unreasonable ence him, waiting (Emphasis paramedics would be that risk of serious harm.” to known However, added). as soon as he arrived called an ambulance points the dissent to noth- department police any- jail, the returned the ing, to find or and we have been unable We sought medical assistance there.” supports and thing, that such inference an fact, opposite is true. Under normal knowledge. analysis, the believe the earlier in its circumstances, truly who believes acknowledges re- one that that record dissent "[t]he go through faking will not is illness otherwise individual that neither officer saw nor veals per- summoning help for ingested the knowledge Weaver co- the trouble that had instance, best, added). experi- For common (Emphasis rec- ceived actor. At caine.” parent who believes that ence that a supports an Owen should teaches inference that ord (i.e., feigning to avoid suspected) is illness school that her child have known that this, emergency child to the drugs. dissent will not consumed To rush case, Thus, concedes, facts of this based on the became room. ”[w]hen Weaver apparently contrary, ill, to the record evidence immediately and without the officers summoned steps to aid Weaver indicating they to retake paramedics, did indeed Owen’s failure that only that he drugs.” supports the inference did suspect that he had swallowed more, added). in subjective belief that (Emphasis the mere draw the Without need of assistance. as medical of a risk of harm insufficient ruling we REVERSE the the district Officer Owen’s actions require a differ- however, analysis, and REMAND for the court to ent grant court because he alone summary judgment transported in Morgan their Weaver to the County capacities. Wartburg, Jail some individual distance from Oli- ver Springs. Taking plaintiffs allega- true, DAUGHTREY, tions Judge, appears Circuit as it that Weaver be- gan get concurring part dissenting sick and throw part. up within five minutes of leaving station in I agree Because that Officer Shadoan Springs. Oliver Despite having just been granted qualified should have been immu- told by paramedics, you see “If nity in this I would reverse the dis- problems other anything changes, at all trict court’s decision on issue. How- back,” call us Owen continued on the 20- ever, agree I cannot majority’s with the 25 minute to Wartburg. drive He could Stephen conclusion that Lamont Weaver’s have, not, but did call ahead for medical violated, rights constitutional were not assistance; have, not, he could but did I would therefore affirm the district return the short distance to the Oliver judgment court’s regard with to Officer Springs police have, department; he could Owen. not, but did directly drive Weaver to an The record reveals neither officer result, area hospital. As a by the time saw nor knowledge otherwise had Jail, Morgan arrived at the County ingested Weaver had cocaine. It is also Weaver was such distress he had to *15 undisputed repeatedly that Weaver denied Still, be carried from the car. Owen did swallowing any However, drugs. when not request medical assistance for Weaver ill, Weaver became the officers immediate- Instead, for another 15 minutes or more. ly paramedics, summoned the indicating requested he jailers, that one of the they that suspect did indeed that he had certified EMT who was then girlfriend his drugs. swallowed the Officer Shadoan wife, and was later his check on Weaver. conceded that waiting while for the ambu- only by She did so looking through the cell lance, he checked Weaver’s heartbeat and bars to see breathing. whether breathing indication that Sha- paramedics Owen did not call again —another doan was concerned about Weaver’s condi- some 40 or 45 minutes after tion. first paramedics been seen in Oliver Springs.
The record further reveals Officer last dealings Shadoan’s with Weaver were Owen’s failure to seek prompt medical at Springs the Oliver Department Police assistance or advice when condi- paramedics after had been summoned to tion deteriorated constitutes in- deliberate evaluate Weaver’s medical condition. it difference because was an unreasonable Weaver, When Shadoan last saw response to a known risk of serious harm. was alive and did any signs not show of Owen asserts that he believed Weaver was facts, illness, illness. on undisputed Based these I “faking” surely police but offi- would reverse the district court’s denial of cers are not free to substitute their own qualified immunity for Officer judgment Shadoan on for that of professionals medical plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment when already there is reason to believe claim. that there is cause concern.1 simply It attempt escape despite is not reasonable to believe that at the fact that he "faking” symptoms Weaver could be these had tried to flee the earlier the arrest
414 initially refused The fact that Weaver
Furthermore, question can be no there anal not alter this treatment does medical indifference “deliberate such Wingo, v. 542 Scharfenberger ysis. needs” was medical serious [Weaver’s] (6th Cir.1976), 328, we held 330 F.2d to be right constitutional of his violation lawfully cannot prisoner’s “a custodians punishment. unusual cruel and free from care even adequate medical deny ... 104-05, 97, Gamble, 97 429 U.S. Estelle v. injury.” The self instances deliberate 251 While 285, 50 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. then, turn on whether does not right, a matter of expressed as is often right affirmatively seeks individual incarcerated jurisprudence, Eighth Amendment rather, but, on the offi medical treatment those not limited to it affords is protection is medical treatment awareness that cers’ conviction, but after who are incarcerated Hence, May City Rich v. necessary. Fourteenth applies pursuant also (6th 1092, F.2d 1096-97 Heights, 955 field See detainees. pre-trial incar Cir.1992), that an explicitly we found Dep’t. Winnebago County DeShaney v. clearly did not have individual cerated Servs., n. 109 198 489 U.S. Soc. correctly “to be screened right established (1989); 998, 103 Roberts 249 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. ... to have for suicidal tendencies (6th F.2d City Troy, 773 v. prevented have which steps taken would Cir.1985). Moreover, in this the re suicide,” prior our hold reiterated but we have been right must quirement clearly estab have a ing that detainees do ... particularized in a medical care clearly right established “to adequate lished clearly suffi Fitzke are satisfied. See where the circumstances has also been sense of medical atten indicate the need cient to F.2d Cir. Shappell, injury or illness.” Id. at tion for 1972) (“where clear are the circumstances 1076). Fitzke, 468 F.2d at (quoting need of medical to indicate the ly sufficient one who injury [to or illness here, attention for and Officer Owen The officers incarcerated], of such aid the denial notice that were on particular, symptoms, of constitution additional developed constitutes the deprivation *16 immedi- (citations omitted).2 notify authorities medical should process”) al due following an automobile 2. Fitzke was arrested may some situations scene. Police officers local in the accident and was incarcerated feigning reasonably prisoner is deduce that a about 1:30 a.m. until jail. was held from He provide assis- symptoms medical and wait day period of about 17 p.m. the same 6:30 —a brought prisoner they have tance until requested medical hours—before he received is not the case here. a secure location. That During from time he suffered treatment. distress, physical response to Weaver’s In pain complained injury and a serious brain simply make an initial decision Owen did not parts body. of his and numbness in various assistance, but medical not to seek immediate alleged Fitzke that the at 1074-75. 468 F.2d deliberately ignored medical advice instead receiving medical treatment in- delay in given regarding already that he had been damage. severity Id. his brain creased Additionally, truly if he believed Weaver. precedent there was for court found that This "faking,” called he could have Weaver was constituted a claim that his treatment Fitzke’s waiting paramedics would be ahead so that § hold- 42 U.S.C. cause of action under him, as soon as he called an ambulance ing exceptional circumstances that "under to the jail, at the or returned arrived permit to medical provide or access failure to sought department medical assistance one’s may give to a violation of rise care se- Any actions would have there. of these rights such re- [since] Fourteenth deprivation Weaver without cured medical assistance could well result in fusal risk, (internal quotation flight yet pur- Owen creating life itself.” Id. at 1076 an undue omitted). citations marks and sued none of them. so, ately. failing to do Officer Owen right qualified immuni-
forfeited his
ty to which he would otherwise be entitled.
I therefore conclude the district court denying qualified
was correct in immunity
to Officer Owen on Weaver’s Fourteenth
Amendment claim and would affirm that
portion of the district judgment. court’s
Fugen GULERTEKIN, Petitioner-
Appellant, TINNELMAN-COOPER,
Deborah
Warden, Respondent-
Appellee.
No. 01-3920.
United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 2003.
Decided Aug. and Filed