penn v. escorsio, 1st cir. (2014)

7/26/2019 Penn v. Escorsio, 1st Cir. (2014)

1/23

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 13- 2309

CATHY PENN, i n her capaci t y as Guardi an of Mat t hew Lal l i ,

Pl ai nt i f f , Appel l ee,

v.

ANGELA ESCORSI O and DANE WI NSLOW, i ndi vi dual l y and i n thei rof f i ci al capaci t i es as Knox Count y Cor r ect i ons Of f i cer s,

Def endant s, Appel l ant s,

and

KNOX COUNTY; KNOX COUNTY SHERI FF S DEPARTMENT; KNOX COUNTY J AI L;DONNA DENNI SON, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as Knox Count y Sher i f f ;and J ULI E STI LKEY, CHRI STOPHER TRUPPA, WARREN HEATH I V, ROBERTWOOD, J OHN HI NKLEY, KATHY CARVER, WARREN HEATH I I I , and BRADLEY

WOLL, i ndi vi dual l y and i n t hei r of f i ci al capaci t i es as KnoxCount y Cor r ect i ons Of f i cer s,

Def endants.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF MAI NE

[ Hon. Nancy Tor r esen, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or eThompson, Bal dock, * and Sel ya,

Ci r cui t J udges.

Pet er T. Marchesi , wi t h whomCassandr a S. Shaf f er and Wheel er& Ar ey, P. A. wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ant s.Nol an L. Rei chl , wi t h whom Ral ph I . Lancast er , Dani el J .

St evens, Cather i ne R. Connors, and Pi er ce At wood LLP wer e on br i ef ,f or appel l ee.

*Of t he Tent h Ci r cui t , si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/23

August 22, 2014


3/23

Baldock, Circuit Judge. Def endant s Dane Wi nsl ow and

Angel a Escor si o wer e i nvol ved i n a ser i es of t r oubl i ng event s t hat

l ed t o the at t empt ed- - and near l y compl et ed- - sui ci de of Mat t hew

Lal l i . Lal l i was at t he t i me a pr e- t r i al det ai nee bei ng hel d at

t he j ai l wher e Def endant s wor k as cor r ect i ons of f i cer s. Lal l i s

guar di an, Pl ai nt i f f Cat hy Penn, sued Def endant s. Penn cl ai med,

among ot her t hi ngs, del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence i n vi ol at i on of Lal l i s

Fourt eent h Amendment Due Pr ocess r i ght s. 1 Def endant s moved f or

summary j udgment , argui ng t hey wer e not del i ber atel y i ndi f f er ent

and, i n any event , wer e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. The

di st r i ct cour t deni ed Def endant s mot i on. The cour t hel d t hat ,

accept i ng al l f act s and dr awi ng al l i nf er ences i n Penn s f avor , a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude Def endant s wer e del i ber at el y

i ndi f f er ent because t hey took essent i al l y no act i on t o f or est al l a

subst ant i al r i sk t hat Lal l i woul d at t empt sui ci de. The cour t al so

hel d reasonabl e of f i ci al s i n Def endant s posi t i ons woul d have known

t hey vi ol at ed Lal l i s cl ear l y est abl i shed Four t eent h Amendment

r i ght s i f a j ur y i ndeed concl uded t hat Def endant s ef f ect i vel y

f ai l ed t o t ake any act i on t o f or estal l t hi s r i sk.

1 Penn or i gi nal l y sued a host of Def endant s i ncl udi ng KnoxCount y, Knox Count y Sher i f f s Depart ment , Knox Count y J ai l , Knox

Count y s Sher i f f , and a gr oup of cor r ect i ons of f i cer s i ncl udi ngDef endant s Wi nsl ow and Escor si o. Penn sought money damages under42 U. S. C. 1983 f or vi ol at i ons of t he Ei ght h and Four t eent hAmendment s t o t he Uni t ed St ates Const i t ut i on, as wel l as underst at e l aw. Ul t i mat el y, t he par t i es set t l ed and st i pul at ed t o t hedi smi ssal of al l cl ai ms except t hose agai nst Def endant s Wi nsl ow andEscor si o.

-3-


4/23

Def endant s now appeal , st eadf ast l y asser t i ng qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y. But Def endant s appeal r el i es heavi l y on f act ual

ar gument s despi t e our hol di ng t hat a di st r i ct cour t s pr et r i al

r ej ect i on of a qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense i s not i mmedi at el y

appeal abl e t o t he ext ent t hat i t t ur ns on ei t her an i ssue of f act

or an i ssue per cei ved by t he t r i al cour t t o be an i ssue of f act .

Cady v. Wal sh, 753 F. 3d 348, 359 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) ( emphasi s i n

or i gi nal ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . I n par t i cul ar ,

Def endant s concede cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw at t he t i me Lal l i

at t empt ed sui ci de di ct at ed of f i cer s must t ake some reasonabl e

measur es t o t hwar t a known, subst ant i al r i sk t hat a pr e- t r i al

det ai nee wi l l at t empt sui ci de. But t he di st r i ct cour t f ound a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude Def endant s ef f ect i vel y f ai l ed t o

t ake any act i on t o f or est al l t hi s r i sk as t o Lal l i . Based on t he

conceded l aw and t he di st r i ct cour t s f act ual anal ysi s, Def endant s

cannot show t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y at t he summary

j udgment phase of t hi s l i t i gat i on. Ther ef or e, af t er wi nnowi ng away

t he chaf f t o reveal t he very nar r ow l egal quest i on we may answer

under 28 U. S. C. 1291 and t he col l at er al or der doct r i ne, we

af f i r m.

I.

We may exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on over an i nt er l ocut or y appeal

f r oma deni al of summary j udgment on qual i f i ed i mmuni t y onl y t o t he

ext ent t he appeal r est s on l egal , r at her t han f act ual gr ounds. We

-4-


5/23

t hus summar i ze t he f act s i n the l i ght most f avor abl e t o Penn,

t aki ng as unchal l enged any i nf er ences t he di st r i ct cour t dr ew i n

her f avor . Cady, 753 F. 3d at 350. 2 A more t horough r eci t at i on of

t hese f act s can be f ound i n t he di st r i ct cour t s or der , see Penn v.

Knox Cnty. , No. 2: 11- cv- 00363, 2013 WL 5503671, at *113 ( D. Me.

Sept . 30, 2013) ( unpubl i shed) , but t he f ol l owi ng wi l l suf f i ce f or

our pur poses.

A. Defendant Winslow

On Satur day, Oct ober 3, 2009, Mat t hew Lal l i was ar r est ed

and t aken t o Knox Count y J ai l ( KCJ ) f or al l egedl y bei ng

i nt oxi cat ed and commi t t i ng assaul t i n vi ol at i on of t he t er ms of hi s

r el ease. Lal l i s ar r ai gnment on t hese char ges was set f or Monday,

Oct ober 5. When Lal l i ar r i ved at KCJ , Def endant Wi nsl ow was on

dut y as KCJ s shi f t super vi sor . I n accor dance wi t h KCJ s i nt ake

pr ocedur es, Of f i cer St i l key, who was t he booki ng of f i cer under

2 Of cour se, we need not accept [ Penn s] ver si on of event si f i t i s bl at ant l y cont r adi ct ed by t he evi dence. Medi na- Ri ver av. MVM, I nc. , 713 F. 3d 132, 136 ( 1st Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Scot t v.Harr i s, 550 U. S. 372, 380( 2007) ) . But Def endant s nowher e argue t hedi st r i ct cour t s f act ual det er mi nat i ons, as summar i zed bel ow, ar ebl at ant l y cont r adi ct ed by t he r ecor d and our r evi ew of t he r ecor dr eveal s no bl at ant cont r adi ct i ons. To be sur e, Def endant s ar guet hat many of t he di st r i ct cour t s f act ual f i ndi ngs and i nf er encesare not support ed by t he r ecor d, but t hat i s a ver y di f f er entargument - - an argument we do not have j ur i sdi ct i on t o r evi ew at t hi s

t i me. See Cady, 753 F. 3d at 359 ( Quest i ons of evi dent i ar ysuf f i ci ency - - i . e. , whet her t he r ecor d i s capabl e of suppor t i ng apar t i cul ar f actual f i ndi ng, r at her t han a par t i cul ar l egalconcl usi on- - ar e not suf f i ci ent l y di st i nct t o war r ant i nt er l ocut or yappeal . ( mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ) .

-5-


6/23

Wi nsl ow s super vi si on, f i l l ed out bot h a sui ci de ri sk assessment

f or m and a medi cal scr eeni ng f or m f or Lal l i . The sui ci de r i sk

assessment r eveal ed t hat Lal l i had, among ot her t hi ngs, ( 1) l ost

t wo cl ose f r i ends t o sui ci de, ( 2) at t empt ed sui ci de hi msel f t wo

year s pr i or , and ( 3) when asked whet her he t hen f el t l i ke ki l l i ng

hi msel f r esponded not sur e, f eel s t hat . . . l i f e i s over . Under

KCJ s model sui ci de r i sk assessment f or m, a sui ci de r i sk scor e of

15 or mor e poi nt s qual i f i es as t he hi ghest sui ci de r i sk l evel and

r equi r es KCJ t o pr ovi de one- on- one observat i on of t he i nmat e and t o

conduct a ment al heal t h eval uat i on wi t hi n one hour . When Lal l i s

answers t o the sui ci de assessment and medi cal scr eeni ng f orms ar e

appl i ed t o t hi s model , hi s r i sk of sui ci de scor ed at l east 20

poi nt s. A f i nal por t i on of t he sui ci de r i sk assessment f or m cal l s

f or t he booki ng of f i cer t o i ndi cat e wi t h checkmar ks whi ch of f i ve

l evel s of i nt er vent i on t he det ai nee r ecei ved r angi ng f r om NO

I NTERVENTI ON/ GENERAL POPULATI ON t o PLACED ON SUI CI DE WATCH STEP

2. Nei t her St i l key nor Wi nsl ow checked of f any of t hese boxes.

But Lal l i s sui ci de ri sk assessment and medi cal

assessment wor r i ed Of f i cer St i l key. As a r esul t , af t er compl et i ng

t he f or ms, St i l key tol d Def endant Wi nsl ow: [ Y] ou need t o l ook at

t hi s. Af t er r evi ewi ng Lal l i s i nt ake f or ms, Wi nsl ow deci ded t o

pl ace Lal l i on wel f ar e wat ch, whi ch r equi r ed st af f t o make

separ at e l og ent r i es r egar di ng Lal l i s condi t i on when t hey

conduct ed t hei r f i f t een- mi nut e checks of hi s cel l and ensur ed t hat

-6-


7/23

a ment al heal t h care worker woul d speak wi t h Lal l i t he next t i me

one was schedul ed t o vi si t t he j ai l . Al t hough KCJ had an avai l abl e

sui ci de pr event i on cel l , Cel l 127, whi ch coul d be const ant l y

moni t or ed f r om t he i nt ake desk, Wi nsl ow deci ded t o pl ace Lal l i i n

Cel l 135. Of f i cer s si t t i ng at t he i nt ake desk can hear peopl e i n

Cel l 135 i f t hey make a l oud noi se, but have no vi ew i nt o Cel l 135

i t sel f . Mor eover , Cel l 135 i s not st r i pped of obj ect s a det ai nee

coul d use t o har m hi msel f . For i nst ance, Cel l 135 cont ai ns sheet s

and beddi ng whi ch a det ai nee coul d pot ent i al l y f ashi on i nt o a

makeshi f t noose- - as Lal l i di d her e. Wi nsl ow had no f ur t her not abl e

cont act wi t h Lal l i and Sunday, Oct ober 4 was unevent f ul .

B. Defendant Escorsio

On t he morni ng of Monday, Oct ober 5, Of f i cer Heat h, who

was at t hat t i me t he on- dut y i nt ake of f i cer , document ed i n KCJ s

i nt ake/ r el ease l og and i n Lal l i s wel f ar e- wat ch l og t hat : whi l e

movi ng i nmat e Wood, i nmat e Mat t hew Lal l i t ol d me that he has sol e

cust ody of hi s daught er and t hat i f he wer e not al l owed t o be on

t he out si de t hen i t woul d be bet t er i f he wasn t al i ve at al l . At

12: 07 p. m. , KCJ s i nt ake/ r el ease l og i ndi cat es Def endant Escor si o

t ook over f or Heat h as i nt ake of f i cer .

Bet ween noon and 12: 30 p. m. , j ai l st af f assembl ed ni ne

det ai nees i n t he i nt ake ar ea t o pr epar e t hem f or t hei r t r i p t o t he

Knox Count y Di st r i ct Cour t f or cour t appear ances. The gr oup

i ncl uded Lal l i and sever al other i nmates who wer e deposed i n

-7-


8/23

r el at i on t o t hi s sui t . One i nmat e t est i f i ed t hat Lal l i began

r eal l y f r eaki ng out bef or e bei ng l oaded i nt o a van f or t r anspor t

t o t he cour t - - appar ent l y l oud enough f or Def endant Escorsi o t o have

hear d. Anot her i nmat e t est i f i ed t hat Lal l i made var i ous t hr eat s t o

hur t hi msel f dur i ng t he t r i p f r om t he j ai l t o t he cour t house,

sayi ng i f I don' t get t he hel l out of her e I m goi ng t o hur t

mysel f , ki l l mysel f .

At hi s ar r ai gnment , Lal l i t ol d t he pr esi di ng j udge t hat

i t woul d be al l be over and t hat he woul d j ust end i t i f he was

deni ed bai l . The j udge never t hel ess or der ed t hat Lal l i be hel d

wi t hout bai l . Af t er t he j udge i ssued t he r ul i ng, Lal l i became

upset and st ar t ed cr yi ng. As Lal l i r et ur ned t o t he dock ar ea, one

wi t ness t est i f i ed, he was scr eami ng hyst er i cal l y and cr yi ng and

t hr eat eni ng sui ci de. Thi s wi t ness r ecal l ed t hat af t er Lal l i

r ej oi ned t he ot her i nmat es, he sai d t hat he mi ght as wel l j ust

ki l l hi msel f because he [ coul dn t ] go back t o j ai l and t hat he was

goi ng t o l ose ever yt hi ng. Anot her i nmat e i n t he van t est i f i ed

t hat Lal l i , l oudl y and t hr oughout t he shor t t r i p back t o j ai l ,

kept sayi ng he was goi ng t o ki l l hi msel f .

Al t hough none of t he t r anspor t of f i cer s r el ayed Lal l i s

sui ci de t hr eat s t o Def endant Escor si o, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound

one of t he i nmat es [ pr obabl y] di d i nf or m Escor si o. At

appr oxi mat el y 2: 52 p. m. , a cor r ect i ons of f i cer st r i p- sear ched

Lal l i . Lal l i was upset af t er t he sear ch and began t o cry. Hopi ng

-8-


9/23

t o cal m Lal l i down, Escor si o al l owed hi m t o make a cal l f r om t he

phone next t o t he j ai l s i nt ake desk. As t he cal l began, Escor si o

hear d Lal l i speak about hi s daught er and t he deni al of hi s bai l .

Cor por al Wol l , who was al so near by, hear d Lal l i say t hat he woul d

r at her di e i f he di d not have hi s daught er .

At t hi s poi nt , Def endant Escor si o and t he ot her of f i cer s

on dut y deci ded Lal l i shoul d be moved f r om Cel l 135 t o Cel l 127,

t he vacant sui ci de pr event i on cel l . But because a f emal e i nmat e

occupi ed Cel l 126, whi ch shar es a day r oom wi t h Cel l 127, t he

of f i cer s needed t o move some i nmates around bef ore put t i ng Lal l i i n

Cel l 127. I nst ead of t aki ng any pr ecaut i ons i n t he i nt er i m,

however , at about 3: 00 p. m. Escor si o r et ur ned Lal l i t o Cel l 135.

She di d not put hi m i n a sui ci de smock, nor di d she t ake away hi s

beddi ng. Escor si o t hen secur ed Lal l i s t wo nei ghbor i ng i nmat es i n

t hei r cel l s, al l owi ng onl y Lal l i access t o t he adj oi ni ng day r oom.

Bef or e she l ef t t he ar ea, Escor si o t ol d Lal l i t o si t down and

shut up and war ned hi m t hat she woul d br i ng hi m up f r ont i n t he

t ur t l e sui t [ a. k. a. sui ci de smock] i f he di d not do as t ol d.

Next , Lal l i made a cal l f r om t he phone i n t he day room.

Lal l i t ol d t he per son on t he ot her end of t he l i ne t hat he was

goi ng t o ki l l hi msel f . Accor di ng t o t he di str i ct cour t , Lal l i t hen

began paci ng around t he day r oom, scr eami ng I m goi ng t o f ** *i ng

ki l l mysel f as l oud as i f he wer e hol l er i ng t o somebody 75 yar ds

away. Af t er spendi ng about t en t o f i f t een mi nut es i n t he day

-9-


10/23

r oom, Lal l i went i nt o Cel l 135 and cl osed t he door . Once i nsi de,

Lal l i st ar t ed ki cki ng hi s door , t hr owi ng t hi ngs ar ound hi s cel l and

cr eat i ng a l ot of commot i on. Def endant Escor si o conduct ed another

wel f are check on Lal l i somet i me between 3: 15 and 3: 25 p. m. Lal l i

st opped maki ng noi se af t er t hi s vi si t .

J ust bef or e 3: 30 p. m. , Def endant Escor si o asked Cor poral

Wol l t o per f or m Lal l i s upcomi ng wel f ar e- wat ch check f or her .

Bef ore Wol l r eached Cel l 135, however , he not i ced a whi t e sheet

hangi ng f r om a di vi der pol e. Wol l i mmedi at el y or der ed t he door be

opened and cal l ed f or assi st ance. Once i nsi de, he f ound Lal l i s

body hangi ng f r om t he di vi der pol e. Wol l and anot her cor r ect i ons

of f i cer began per f or mi ng chest compr essi ons and CPR on Lal l i .

Bef or e l ong, par amedi cs ar r i ved and r emoved Lal l i f r omt he cel l . An

ambul ance r ushed Lal l i t o East er n Mai ne Medi cal Cent er , i n Bangor ,

Mai ne, wher e doct or s l at er di agnosed hi m wi t h anoxi c br ai n i nj ur y

r esul t i ng f r om t he sui ci de at t empt .

C. The District Court Order

I n anal yzi ng t he del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence cl ai m agai nst

Def endant Wi nsl ow, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound, [ a] r easonabl e j ur y

coul d concl ude t hat r equi r i ng guar ds t o r ecor d t hei r obser vat i ons

i n a wel f ar e wat ch l ogbook has no pr act i cal ef f ect and serves onl y

t o paper t he j ai l s f i l e, Penn, 2013 WL 5503671 at *18, and t hat

under wel f are wat ch Lal l i was moni t ored no more t han any ot her

pr et r i al det ai nee i n t he j ai l s i nt ake wi ng. I d. at *19. The

-10-


11/23

cour t al so poi nt ed out t hat Wi nsl ow put Lal l i i n one of t he l east -

observabl e cel l s i n t he i nt ake wi ng, and no ment al heal t h car e

wor ker vi si t ed t he j ai l s pr emi ses unt i l Tuesday, Oct ober 6, t hr ee

days af t er Lal l i ar r i ved at KCJ and a day af t er Lal l i at t empt ed

sui ci de. The cour t di d not e t hat Wi nsl ow s i nvol vement i n Lal l i s

case was al most t wo days r emoved f r omLal l i s sui ci de at t empt , but

poi nt ed out t hat t hi s f act al one does not pr ecl ude l i abi l i t y

because a r easonabl e j ur y coul d f i nd t hat [ t ] he deci si ons

[ Wi nsl ow] made about Lal l i s housi ng and moni t or i ng r egi me set a

basel i ne whi ch af f ect ed how ever yone el se at t he j ai l i nt er act ed

wi t h Lal l i .

Ul t i mat el y, t he di st r i ct cour t det er mi ned a reasonabl e

j ury coul d f i nd Def endant Wi nsl ow act ed wi t h del i berat e

i ndi f f er ence t owar d Lal l i :

Taki ng t he f act s i n t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o t hePl ai nt i f f and dr awi ng al l i nf er ences i n her f avor , af act - f i nder coul d concl ude t hat Ser geant Wi nsl ow t ookessent i al l y no act i on t o r educe t he subst ant i al r i sk t hatLal l i woul d at t empt t o ki l l hi msel f . . . . Under t hi svi ew of t he f act s, t hi s i s not a case wher e Ser geantWi nsl ow mer el y chose bet ween di f f er ent cour se[ s] oft r eat ment , but r at her one wher e he f ai l ed t o pr ovi de anymeani ngf ul hel p at al l . Accor di ngl y, t her e i s a t r i abl ei ssue of f act r egar di ng whet her Ser geant Wi nsl owcul pabl y i gnor e[ d] a subst ant i al r i sk t hat Lal l i woul dser i ousl y har m hi msel f .

I d. ( emphasi s added) .

I n anal yzi ng t he del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence cl ai m agai nst

Def endant Escor si o, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound [ t ] her e i s a genui ne

di sput e of mat er i al f act r egar di ng whet her Of f i cer Escor si o

-11-


12/23

r eal i zed t hat Lal l i f aced a subst ant i al r i sk of ser i ous har mon t he

af t er noon of Oct ober 5, 2009. I d. at *24. The cour t al so poi nt ed

out t hat a r easonabl e f act - f i nder coul d concl ude Escor si o di d not

check on Lal l i at t he mandat ed 15- mi nut e i nt er val s, and t hat she

conducted onl y a cur sor y check, hol l er [ i ng] i nt o Lal l i s cel l

f r om out si de t hat he needed t o qui et down but never act ual l y

ent er i ng hi s cel l or di r ect l y obser vi ng hi m. I d. Fur t her mor e,

t he cour t f ound, [ a] r easonabl e f act f i nder coul d concl ude t hat

Of f i cer Escorsi o s commands t o si t down and shut up, and

t hr eat s of a t ur t l e sui t wor sened Lal l i s f r agi l e condi t i on.

I d. As such, t he cour t concl uded, [ s] i nce Of f i cer Escor si o t ook

essent i al l y no act i on t o pr ot ect Lal l i af t er he r et ur ned t o Cel l

135, t her e i s a t r i abl e i ssue r egar di ng whet her Of f i cer Escor si o

cul pabl y i gnor [ ed] a subst ant i al r i sk t hat ser i ous har m woul d

bef al l Lal l i , and t her ef or e coul d be f ound l i abl e f or del i ber at e

i ndi f f er ence. I d. ( emphasi s added) .

As t o Def endant s cl ai m of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y, t he

di st r i ct cour t f i r st hel d t hat , [ w] i t h r espect t o [ Def endant s]

Wi nsl ow . . . and Escor si o, t he f act s al l eged or shown by t he

pl ai nt i f f make out a vi ol at i on of a const i t ut i onal r i ght . I d. at

*26 ( quot i ng Mal donado v. Font anes, 568 F. 3d 263, 269 ( 1st Ci r .

2009) . The cour t t hen addr essed whet her t he r i ght was cl ear l y

est abl i shed. The cour t expl ai ned t hat as a gener al mat t er , a

r easonabl e of f i ci al i n t he Def endant s posi t i on i n Oct ober of 2009

-12-


13/23

woul d have known t hat i t vi ol at es t he Four t eent h Amendment t o f ai l

t o t ake r easonabl e measures t o thwar t a known, subst ant i al r i sk

t hat a pr et r i al det ai nee wi l l at t empt sui ci de. I d. at *26. The

cour t al so not ed t hat under cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw a pl ai nt i f f

may make out a del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence cl ai m by showi ng t hat an

of f i ci al f ai l ed t o communi cat e cri t i cal i nf or mat i on about a

speci f i c, ser i ous r i sk f aci ng an i nmat e wher e i t was wi t hi n t he

of f i ci al s scope of r esponsi bi l i t y t o do so. I d. Appl yi ng t hi s

l aw t o t he summary j udgment r ecor d, t he cour t hel d:

Def endant s al l eged conduct - - ef f ect i vel y f ai l i ng t o t akeany act i on t o f or est al l t he r i sk that Lal l i woul d at t emptsui ci de at t he moment he di d- - cl ear l y f al l s under t hegener al const i t ut i onal r ul e t hat i t vi ol at es t heFour t eenth Amendment t o f ai l t o t ake r easonabl e measur est o t hwar t a known, subst ant i al r i sk t hat a pr et r i aldet ai nee wi l l at t empt sui ci de.

I d. ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . Accor di ngl y, t he cour t hel d Def endant s

wer e not ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y on t he cl ai m of del i ber at e

i ndi f f er ence at t he summary j udgment st age. Def endant s t i mel y

appeal ed.

II.

Our f i r st t ask i s t o est abl i sh t he cont our s of our

j ur i sdi ct i on over t hi s appeal .

An or der denyi ng a mot i on f or summar y j udgment i s

gener al l y not a f i nal deci si on wi t hi n t he meani ng of [ 42U. S. C. ] 1291 and i s t hus gener al l y not i mmedi at el yappeal abl e. But t hat gener al r ul e does not appl y whent he summary j udgment mot i on i s based on a cl ai m ofqual i f i ed i mmuni t y. Qual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s an i mmuni t yf r om sui t r at her t han a mer e def ense t o l i abi l i t y. As ar esul t , pr et r i al or der s denyi ng qual i f i ed i mmuni t y

-13-


14/23

gener al l y f al l wi t hi n t he col l at er al or der doctr i ne.Thi s i s so because such or ders concl usi vel y det er mi newhet her t he def endant i s ent i t l ed t o i mmuni t y f r omsui t ;t hi s i mmuni t y i ssue i s bot h i mpor t ant and compl et el ysepar at e f r omt he mer i t s of t he act i on, and t hi s quest i oncoul d not be ef f ect i vel y r evi ewed on appeal f r oma f i nal

j udgment because by t hat t i me t he i mmuni t y f r omst andi ngt r i al wi l l have been i r r et r i evabl y l ost .

Pl umhof f v. Ri ckar d, 134 S. Ct . 2012, 201819 ( 2014) ( quot at i ons

and al t er at i ons omi t t ed) .

That sai d, we have l ong r el i ed on J ohnson v. J ones, 515

U. S. 304, 31820 ( 1995) , f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat : a di st r i ct

cour t s pr et r i al r ej ect i on of a qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense i s not

i mmedi at el y appeal abl e t o the ext ent t hat i t t ur ns on ei t her an

i ssue of f act or an i ssue per cei ved by t he t r i al cour t t o be an

i ssue of f act . Cady, 753 F. 3d at 359 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )

( quot i ng St el l a v. Kel l ey, 63 F. 3d 71, 74 ( 1st Ci r . 1995) , and

ci t i ng J ohnson, 515 U. S. at 318- 20) .

But t he Supr eme Cour t r ecent l y cl ar i f i ed t hat t he

J ohnson or der was not i mmedi at el y appeal abl e because i t mer el y

deci ded a quest i on of evi dence suf f i ci ency, i . e. , whi ch f act s a

par t y may, or may not , be abl e t o pr ove at t r i al . Pl umhof f , 134

S. Ct . at 2019. On t he ot her hand, t he Cour t expl ai ned, t o t he

ext ent of f i cer s cont end t hat t hei r conduct di d not vi ol at e t he

[ l aw] and, i n any event , di d not vi ol at e cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw.

. . . t hey r ai se l egal i ssues. I d. The Cour t t hen made cl ear

t hat deci di ng l egal i ssues of t hi s sor t i s a cor e r esponsi bi l i t y

-14-


15/23

of appel l at e cour t s, and r equi r i ng appel l at e cour t s t o deci de such

i ssues i s not an undue bur den. I d.

I n sum, we need not consi der t he cor r ect ness of t he

pl ai nt i f f s ver si on of t he f acts, Mi t chel l v. For syt h, 472 U. S.

511, 528 ( 1985) , except , per haps, t o t he extent t hey ar e bl at ant l y

cont r adi ct ed by t he recor d, Scot t , 550 U. S. at 380. 3 But ,

assumi ng t hose pl ai nt i f f - f r i endl y f act s and i nf er ences not

bl at ant l y cont r adi ct ed by t he recor d, we cannot shi r k our dut y t o

deci de as a mat t er of l aw whet her Def endants, on t hose assumed

f act s, vi ol at ed t he l aw and whet her t hat l aw was cl ear l y

est abl i shed such t hat Def endant s are not ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y.

Bef or e we reach t hi s pur el y l egal quest i on, however , we

must peel away t he f acade by whi ch Def endant s per si st ent l y port r ay

as l egal ar gument s what ar e i n r eal i t y pur el y f act ual di sput es.

Qual i f i ed i mmuni t y pr ot ects publ i c of f i ci al s f r om l i abi l i t y f or

ci vi l damages i nsof ar as t hei r conduct does not vi ol at e cl ear l y

est abl i shed st at ut or y or const i t ut i onal r i ght s of whi ch a

r easonabl e per son woul d have known. El l i ot t v. Cheshi r e Cnt y. ,

N. H. , 940 F. 2d 7, 10 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Def endant s do i ndeed asser t ( 1) t hey di d not vi ol at e Lal l i s

r i ght s, or at l east ( 2) a r easonabl e of f i cer i n t hei r posi t i on

woul d not have known he was vi ol at i ng Lal l i s cl ear l y est abl i shed

3 See supr a not e 2.

-15-


16/23

r i ght s. But t hei r ar gument s t o suppor t t hese asser t i ons ar e

ent i r el y f act ual and t hus not appr opr i at e f or i nt er l ocut or y appeal .

A.

Take f or exampl e Def endant s ar gument t hat t hey di d not

vi ol at e Lal l i s r i ght s by del i berat e i ndi f f erence. I t i s cl ear l y

establ i shed . . . t hat j ai l of f i ci al s vi ol at e t he due pr ocess

r i ght s of t hei r det ai nees i f t hey exhi bi t a del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence

t o t he medi cal needs of t he det ai nees . . . . I d. To

demonst r at e del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence a pl ai nt i f f must show ( 1) a

gr ave r i sk of har m, ( 2) t he def endant s act ual or const r uct i ve

knowl edge of t hat r i sk, and ( 3) hi s f ai l ur e t o t ake easi l y

avai l abl e measur es t o addr ess t he r i sk. Cami l o- Robl es v. Hoyos,

151 F. 3d 1, 7 ( 1st Ci r . 1998) .

Del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence i s mor e t han negl i gence. I na sui ci de case, a f i ndi ng of del i ber at e i ndi f f er encer equi r es a st r ong l i kel i hood, r at her t han a mer e

possi bi l i t y, that sel f - i nf l i ct i on of harm wi l l occur .The conduct must encompass act s or omi ssi ons so dangerous( i n r espect t o heal t h and saf et y) t hat a def endant sknowl edge of a l arge r i sk can be i nf er r ed. When asuper vi sor y of f i ci al i s pl aced on act ual not i ce of apr i soner s need f or physi cal pr ot ect i on or medi cal car e,admi ni st r at i ve negl i gence can r i se t o the l evel ofdel i ber at e i ndi f f er ence t o or r eckl ess di sr egar d f or t hatpr i soner s saf et y.

El l i ot t , 940 F. 2d at 10.

Def endant s do not di sput e t he di st r i ct cour t s r eci t at i on

of t he l aw as t o del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence. Rat her , Def endant

Wi nsl ow ar gues he was not del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent , and t her ef or e

di d not vi ol at e Lal l i s r i ght s because t he summar y j udgment r ecor d

-16-


17/23

does not support f i ndi ng a genui ne i ssue as t o whet her Wi nsl ow

act ual l y knew of t he r i sk [ t hat Lal l i woul d at t empt sui ci de] or

whet her Wi nsl ow was del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o t hat r i sk. Def s.

Br . at 26. Si mi l ar l y, Def endant Escor si o ar gues she was not

del i ber at el y i ndi f f er ent t o Lal l i s Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s

because she t ook some act i on t o aver t t he r i sk of har m. I d. at

50. But t hese di scussi ons nowhere devel op t he argument t hat , even

dr awi ng al l t he i nf er ences as t he di st r i ct cour t concl uded a j ur y

per mi ssi bl y coul d, t hey ar e ent i t l ed t o j udgment as a mat t er of

l aw. Cady, 753 F. 3d at 359- 60. I nst ead, Wi nsl ow s argument s t ake

i ssue wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s f act ual det er mi nat i ons as t o hi s

knowl edge of r i sk and hi s ef f or t s- - or l ack t her eof - - t o abat e t hat

r i sk. 4 Si mi l ar l y, Escor si o s ar gument s di sput e t he cour t s f act ual

f i ndi ng t hat she may have t aken essent i al l y no act i on t o aver t t he

r i sk Lal l i woul d at t empt sui ci de when she ret ur ned hi mt o Cel l 135.

As we r ecent l y st at ed i n Cady, t hese f act - based

chal l enge[ s] woul d, of cour se, not def eat j ur i sdi cti on i f . . .

advanced i n t he al t er nat i ve. But nowher e i n t he def endant s br i ef

does t her e appear any devel oped argument t hat t he def endants ar e

ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment even i f t he di st r i ct cour t s

4 Wi nsl ow al so rai ses a causat i on argument , but t hi s argumenti s based on a di sput e wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng of af act ual i ssue as t o whet her [ t ] he ot her cor r ect i ons of f i cer s whoencount ered Lal l i may have been l ul l ed t o compl acency by the f actt hat t he of f i ci al char ged wi t h r evi ewi ng Lal l i s i nt ake f i l edeci ded he mer i t ed onl y wel f ar e wat ch t r eat ment . Def s. Br . at 38( quot i ng Penn, 2013 WL 5503671, at *19).

-17-


18/23

concl usi ons about t he r ecor d wer e cor r ect . I d. at 361. As such,

we have no basi s on whi ch t o exer ci se j ur i sdi ct i on over whet her

Def endant s vi ol at ed Lal l i s cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght s t hr ough

del i ber at e i ndi f f er ence t o the r i sk t hat he woul d at t empt sui ci de.

B.

Si mi l ar l y, Def endant s ar gument s as t o whet her of f i ci al s

i n t hei r posi t i ons coul d have r easonabl y bel i eved t hei r act i ons

wer e l awf ul do not t r ansf or m t hi s appeal i nt o one t hat t ur ns on a

pur e i ssue of l aw. Cady, 753 F. 3d at 361. I ndeed, Def endant s

ar gument s on t hi s poi nt ar e, agai n, pur el y f act ual .

For exampl e, t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed t hat [ a] s of

Oct ober 3, 2009, i t had l ong been set t l ed l aw t hat st at e j ai l

of f i ci al s vi ol at e t he Due Pr ocess Cl ause of t he Four t eent h

Amendment when t hey act wi t h del i berat e i ndi f f erence t oward t he

r i sk t hat pr et r i al det ai nees wi l l ser i ousl y har m t hemsel ves whi l e

i n st ate cust ody. Penn, 2013 WL 5503671, at *26. The cour t al so

st at ed t hat an of f i ci al vi ol at es [ cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw] i f he

knows t hat a pr et r i al det ai nee f aces a subst ant i al r i sk of ser i ous

har m but di sr egar ds t hat r i sk by f ai l i ng t o t ake r easonabl e

measur es t o abat e i t . I d. Def endant s do not di sput e t hese

st at ement s of t he l aw and we wi l l not r evi ew t hemnow as Def endant s

wai ved any argument t o t he cont r ary. I ndeed, Def endant s br i ef

af f i r mat i vel y asser t s the di str i ct cour t s reci t at i on of cl ear l y

est abl i shed l aw i s cor r ect. See, e. g. , Def s. Br . at 44; see al so

-18-


19/23

Def s. Repl y at 28 ( quot i ng Rel l er ger t by Rel l er ger t v. Cape

Gi r ar deau Cnt y. , Mo. , 924 F. 2d 794, 797 ( 8t h Ci r . 1991) , f or t he

pr oposi t i on t hat t he l aw i s cl ear l y est abl i shed t hat j ai l er s must

t ake [ some] measur es t o pr event i nmat e sui ci des once t hey know of

t he sui ci de r i sk, [ but ] we cannot say t hat t he l aw i s est abl i shed

wi t h any cl ar i t y as t o what t hose measur es must be) .

I nst ead, Def endant Wi nsl ow, f or hi s par t , cont ends

[ t ] her e i s not hi ng about t hi s br oad, gener al pr oposi t i on t hat

woul d have al er t ed [ hi m] t hat pl aci ng Lal l i on wel f ar e wat ch

woul d vi ol at e Lal l i s const i t ut i onal r i ght s. Def s. Br . at 45.

Wi nsl ow t hus argues he i s ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y because

he t ook some act i on t o abat e t he r i sk Lal l i pr esent ed. I d. at 48

( emphasi s added) . But t hi s argument i s pr emi sed on a f undament al

f actual di sput e: Wi nsl ow bel i eves t he r ecord shows he t ook some

act i on t o abat e t he r i sk Lal l i woul d at t empt sui ci de by pl aci ng

hi m on wel f ar e wat ch, whi l e t he di st r i ct cour t f ound f act ual

i ssues f r omwhi ch [ a] r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude t hat [ pl aci ng

Lal l i on wel f ar e wat ch ] di d not hi ng t o r educe t he r i sk of Lal l i

at t empt i ng sui ci de bet ween t he t i me he ar r i ved at KCJ and t he t i me

he made hi s sui ci de at t empt . 5 Penn, 2013 WL 5503671, at *18.

5 Def endant Wi nsl ow r epeat edl y cont ends t hat pl aci ng Lal l i onwel f ar e wat ch r esul t ed i n hi s bei ng obser ved at l east t wi ce asof t en as an i nmat e pl aced i n KCJ s gener al popul at i on. But hef ai l s t o ci t e anywher e i n t he r ecor d t o est abl i sh t hat , but f or hi sbei ng pl aced on wel f are watch, Lal l i woul d have i ndeed beenpl aced i n t he gener al popul at i on bef or e he at t empt ed sui ci de.

-19-


20/23

I ndeed, t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed, [ u] nder t hi s vi ew of t he f act s,

t hi s i s not a case wher e Sergeant Wi nsl ow merel y chose bet ween

di f f er ent cour ses of t r eat ment , but r at her one wher e he f ai l ed t o

pr ovi de any meani ngf ul hel p at al l . I d. at *19 ( emphasi s added)

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Wi nsl ow s ar gument t hat he

acted reasonabl y because he t ook some act i on i s t hus a pur el y

f actual di sput e wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s f actual det er mi nat i ons- - a

di sput e we have no j ur i sdi ct i on t o pass on at t hi s poi nt i n t he

l i t i gat i on. 6

Def endant Escor si o rai ses essent i al l y t he same ar gument

on t hi s poi nt . She, l i ke Def endant Wi nsl ow, r eaf f i r ms t he di st r i ct

cour t s st at ement as t o t he appl i cabl e cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw.

She t hen, ar gues, however , t hat [ e] xi st i ng case l aw does not pl ace

cor r ect i onal of f i cer s on not i ce t hat t aki ng some act i on, but not

enough act i on, t o f or est al l or pr event har m [ vi ol at es] i nmat es

Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s. Def s. Br . at 60 ( emphasi s added) .

Li ke Wi nsl ow, t he t hr ust of Escor si o s argument i s t hat she t ook

some act i on t o pr event Lal l i f r om at t empt i ng sui ci de. She

t her ef or e si mpl y di sput es t he di st r i ct cour t s f act ual f i ndi ng t hat

6 Wi nsl ow l i kewi se concedes cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw r equi r edhi mt o communi cat e cr i t i cal i nf or mat i on about any speci f i c ser i ous

r i sk f aci ng Lal l i , but cont ends t hat he di d communi cat e t hi si nf or mat i on by est abl i shi ng t he wat ch l og. Def s. Br . at 48. Thi sargument assumes f ut ure of f i cers woul d read t he wat ch l og when t hedi st r i ct cour t f ound [ t ] her e i s no evi dence t hat any j ai l of f i ci alwas charged wi t h r eadi ng or anal yzi ng t he wel f are watch l ogbook. Penn, 2013 WL 5503671, at *18. Accordi ngl y, t hi s i s but anotherpur el y f act ual argument t hat we may not r esol ve at t hi s t i me.

-20-


21/23

a reasonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude she t ook ef f ect i vel y no act i on

t o pr event or f or est al l t hi s ri sk. And, as wi t h Wi nsl ow, we cannot

r esol ve t hi s f act ual di sput e at t hi s poi nt i n t he l i t i gat i on.

Ul t i matel y, Def endant s hang t hei r hat on di sagr eement s

wi t h how t he di st r i ct cour t wei ghed t he evi dence as t o whet her t hey

i n f act t ook any act i on t hat mi ght have act ual l y f or est al l ed a

subst ant i al r i sk t hat Lal l i woul d at t empt sui ci de. As i mpor t ant as

t hi s i ssue may be, we do not have j ur i sdi ct i on t o addr ess i t on

i nt er l ocut or y appeal as i t t ur ns on quest i ons of evi dent i ar y

suf f i ci ency. See Cady, 753 F. 3d at 359.

III.

Havi ng st r i pped Def endant s ar gument s of al l f act ual

di sput es, we f i nd r el at i vel y st r ai ght f or war d t he pur el y l egal

quest i on whet her , f or summary j udgment pur poses, Def endants

conduct di d not vi ol at e t he [ l aw] and, i n any event , di d not

vi ol at e cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw. Pl umhof f , 134 S. Ct . at 2019.

As t o t he appl i cabl e cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw, we accept f or

pur poses of t hi s appeal Def endant s concessi on t hat an of f i ci al

vi ol at es [ cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw] i f he knows t hat a pr et r i al

det ai nee f aces a subst ant i al r i sk of ser i ous har m but di sr egar ds

t hat r i sk by f ai l i ng t o t ake r easonabl e measur es t o abat e i t .

Def s. Br . at 44 ( quot i ng Penn, 2013 WL 5503671 at *26) . We al so

accept Def endant Wi nsl ow s concessi on t hat cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw

r equi r ed hi mt o communi cat e cr i t i cal i nf or mat i on about any speci f i c

-21-


22/23

ser i ous r i sk f aci ng Lal l i . I d. at 48 ( ci t i ng Penn, 2013 WL 5503671

at *26) . As t o t he appl i cabl e f act s and i nf er ences, const r ued i n

t he l i ght most f avor abl e t o Penn, t he di st r i ct cour t f ound t hat a

r easonabl e j ur y coul d concl ude Def endant s f aced . . . knowl edge of

a subst ant i al r i sk t o Lal l i , and ef f ecti vel y f ai l ed t o t ake any

act i on t o f or est al l t he r i sk t hat Lal l i woul d at t empt sui ci de at

t he moment he di d. Penn, 2013 WL 5503671 at *26 ( emphasi s i n

or i gi nal ) .

I n sum, Def endant s concede t hat cl ear l y est abl i shed l aw

di ct ated t hey t ake some act i on t o abate a known r i sk, wher eas t he

di st r i ct cour t f ound a j ur y coul d concl ude Def endant s t ook

ef f ect i vel y no act i on t o abat e a known r i sk. As such, on t he

pur el y l egal quest i on of qual i f i ed i mmuni t y her e, we af f i r m.

I ndeed, we f i nd our cl osi ng r emar ks f r om Cami l o- Robl es especi al l y

apr opos:

Qual i f i ed i mmuni t y pr ot ect s al l but t he pl ai nl yi ncompet ent or t hose who knowi ngl y vi ol ate t he l aw. I nt hi s case, none of t he appel l ant s consci ousl y chose t ovi ol at e t he l aw. I f t he assumed f act s i ndi cat ed t hatt hey wer e mer el y i nat t ent i ve or car el ess, t hen qual i f i edi mmuni t y woul d shi el d t hem despi t e t he f act t hat [ t hey]vi ol at ed [ an i nmat es s] cl ear l y est abl i shed r i ght s.Her e, however , i ndul gi ng r easonabl e pr o- pl ai nt i f fi nf er ences, t he recor d shows conduct on the appel l ant spar t t hat can best be descr i bed as reckl ess and want on- -conduct t hat i s embl emat i c of . . . pl ai n i ncompet ency .

. . . The appel l ant s behavi or i s, t her ef or e, out si det he wi de band of mi st aken pol i ce j udgment s t hat t hequal i f i ed i mmuni t y doct r i ne i s i nt ended t o shi el d and t heappel l ant s . . . ar e not ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment .

Cami l o- Robl es, 151 F. 3d at 15.

-22-


23/23

IV.

Bef or e we cl ose, a caveat . Thi s opi ni on shoul d not be

const r ued as hol di ng Def endant s ar e t ot al l y i nel i gi bl e f or

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y. Dependi ng on what Def endant s can pr ove at

t r i al , t hey may i ndeed be ent i t l ed t o r ai se qual i f i ed i mmuni t y as

an af f i r mat i ve def ense. Compare Pl umhof f , 134 S. Ct . at 2019

( [ Q] ual i f i ed i mmuni t y i s an i mmuni t y f r omsui t r at her t han a mer e

def ense t o

l i abi l i t y. ( quot i ng Pear son v. Cal l ahan, 555 U. S. 223,

231 ( 2009) ) , wi t h Or t i z v. J or dan, 131 S. Ct . 884, 889 ( 2011) ( A

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y def ense . . . does not vani sh when a di st r i ct

cour t decl i nes t o r ul e on t he pl ea summar i l y. The pl ea r emai ns

avai l abl e t o t he def endi ng of f i ci al s at t r i al . . . . ) , and

Cami l o- Robl es, 151 F. 3d at 9 ( When a def endant f ai l s on a pr et r i al

qual i f i ed i mmuni t y cl ai m, he nonet hel ess can pl ead qual i f i ed

i mmuni t y as an af f i r mat i ve def ense and r esur r ect t he cl ai m at

t r i al . ) . Rat her , we si mpl y hol d t hat , on t he cl ear l y est abl i shed

l aw conceded by Def endants t hemsel ves and t he r easonabl e pr o-

pl ai nt i f f i nf er ences dr awn by t he di st r i ct cour t bel ow, Def endant s

are not ent i t l ed t o qual i f i ed i mmuni t y at t he summary j udgment

phase.

Thi s appeal i s t heref or e DI SMI SSED i n par t f or want of

appel l at e j ur i sdi cti on and, t o t he ext ent j ur i sdi cti on exi st s, t he

j udgment bel ow i s AFFI RMED. Cost s i n f avor of pl ai nt i f f - appel l ee

Penn.

-23-

penn v. escorsio, 1st cir. (2014)

Documents