waller county's motion for summary judgment

7/24/2019 Waller County's Motion for Summary Judgment

1/170

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

GENEVA REED-VEAL,

Individually and as Mother and

Personal Representative of the

Estate of SANDRA BLAND,

deceased,

Plaintiff,

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-02232

(JURY TRIAL REQUESTED)

BRIAN ENCINIA, ET AL.,

Defendants.

COUNTY DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COME NOW WALLER COUNTY, ELSA MAGNUS, and OSCAR PRUDENTE

(collectively County Defendants), file this their Motion for Summary Judgment,

and would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Geneva Reed-Veal (Plaintiff or Reed-Veal) is the mother of

Decedent Sandra Bland (Decedent or Bland). She asserts wrongful death and

survival causes of action against the County Defendants arising from Blands July

13, 2015 suicide, while detained in the Waller County Jail.

Bland was arrested by a state law enforcement officer on Friday, July 10,

2015 for a traffic violation and assault on a public servant. The County defendants

Case 4:15-cv-02232 Document 39 Filed in TXSD on 11/11/15 Page 1 of 39


2/170

- 2 -

had no involvement in the stop, Blands arrest, or her transport to the Waller

County Jail. Similarly, the County Defendants had no personal knowledge of the

events that led to Bland being arrested and transported to the Jail, other than what

was provided by the arresting trooper.

When Bland arrived at the jail, Defendant Oscar Prudente performed an

initial intake screening in which Bland confirmed she was not currently suicidal,

although she acknowledged a prior attempted suicide after losing a baby on or

about May 30, 2014. Approximately two hours and forty-five minutes later,

Defendant Elsa Magnus completed Blands booking process and performed a

separate suicide screening. At that time, Bland again confirmed she was not

suicidal, although she acknowledged the prior suicide attempt after losing a baby.

Screening officers observed that Bland appeared angry she had been arrested, but

not that she was depressed or suicidal. Based on Blands answers to the screening

questions, and the screening officers observations of Bland, she was not identified

as a candidate for suicide watch. Pursuant to state standards, Bland was classified

as medium-assaultive, and she was assigned to a group cell. However, because

the jail had no other female detainees who shared that classification, she was

housed alone.

Although detainees are generally required to use a phone with a pin account

(charged to the detainee), jail staff allowed Bland numerous free phone calls on



3/170

- 3 -

their staff phone on Friday and Saturday (July 10-11, 2015). Bland also had access

to a phone in her cell with which she could make unlimited collect calls. A

magistrate set Blands bond at $5,000 midday Saturday, and she could have

bonded out any time thereafter for approximately $515, which included bail bond

fees. Despite several calls to family and friends, no bond was posted. Bland

exhibited no signs of suicidal tendencies through the weekend. Nonetheless, she

committed suicide on Monday July 13, 2015, by hanging herself in her cell

between 7:55 a.m. and 8:58 a.m.

Reed-Veal claims that Defendants Prudente and Magnus violated Blands

rights through deliberate indifference to an alleged serious risk of suicide. She also

claims Waller Countys customs or policies were the moving force behind

violations of Blands rights. However, as set forth below, Defendants Prudente

and Magnus did not have any subjective knowledge of and were not deliberately

indifferent to any alleged serious risk of suicide. Further, they are entitled to

qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law,

and because their actions were objectively reasonable. In addition, no policy or

custom of Waller County resulted in any violation of Blands rights. Read-Veal

also asserts negligence claims against Prudente, Magnus, and the County.

However, those claims are barred by governmental immunity. Accordingly,

summary judgment is appropriate.



4/170

- 4 -

II.

ISSUES PRESENTED

1.

Whether Defendants Elsa Magnus and Oscar Prudente violated Blandsrights.

2.

Whether Defendants Elsa Magnus and Oscar Prudente are entitled toqualified immunity.

3.

To the extent Defendants Magnus and Prudente violated Blands rights,whether Defendant Waller County had any custom or policy that was themoving force behind any such alleged violation of rights.

4.

Whether Defendant Waller County had any official custom or policy that

violated Blands rights.

5.

Whether County Defendants immunity has been waived for negligenceclaims.

III.

UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

A. Blands History

Reed-Veal alleges that Bland was a resident of Naperville, Illinois.1

However, she is believed to have been moving to the Prairie View, Texas and/or

Houston areas in July 2015. Although not principally relevant here, all indications

are that she was staying with her male friend LaVaughn Mosley on July 10, 2015,

and that she had a job interview at Prairie View A&M the same day, in Prairie

View, Waller County, Texas.

1See Document No. 11 at 1.



5/170

- 5 -

B. Blands Arrest

Co-Defendant Brian Encinias, a Texas Department of Public Safety Trooper,

arrested Bland in Prairie View, Texas at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Friday, July

10, 2015, for a traffic violation and assault on a public servant.2 Bland declined

medical treatment by emergency medical personnel who responded to the scene of

the arrest,3and there is no indication Bland was suicidal at this time. However, it

was discovered in her autopsy performed four days later that she was under the

influence of marijuana.4

Trooper Encinias transported Bland to the Waller County

Jail, in Hempstead, Texas, and they arrived at the jail at approximately 5:30 p.m.5

C. Intake / Booking

Upon arrival at the Waller County Jail, Trooper Encinias completed a form

which asked his opinion as to whether Bland was suicidal or mentally ill, to which

he responded No.6

Thereafter, Defendant Jailer Oscar Prudente conducted an initial intake

screening of Bland at approximately 5:30 p.m., and he asked her several questions

to identify potential suicide risk and other illnesses or conditions which may

2See Exhibit A (Affidavit and Complaint for Arrest Warrant).3See Exhibit B (EMS Records from Arrest).4See ExhibitC (Autopsy Report)5See Exhibit D (Intake Form Completed by Encinias).



6/170

- 6 -

require special treatment.7 He documented her answers as follows, which noted

that she was not thinking about killing yourself today:8

Further, Blands reported previous suicide attempt was a year before and related to

losing a baby, not anything to do with the reason for her arrest, or the fact that she

had been arrested or was in jail.9 Simply put, Bland did not provide any

information to suggest she may be suicidal, and the circumstances surrounding her

arrest did not suggest that she may be suicidal. Accordingly, Jailer Prudente did

not have any subjective awareness that Bland may be suicidal.10 Jailer Prudentes

6See Exhibit D (Intake Form Completed by Encinias).7See Exhibit E (Intake Form Completed by Prudente).8See Exhibit E (Intake Form Completed by Prudente).9See Exhibit E (Intake Form Completed by Prudente).10See Exhibit F (Prudente Affidavit).



7/170

- 7 -

shift ended at 7:00 p.m. on July 10, 2015, and he did not work again at the jail until

after Blands suicide on July 13, 2015.11

Defendant Jailer Elsa Magnus came on duty at 7:00 p.m. on July 10, 2015.12

Approximately two hours and forty-five minutes after Bland arrived at the jail,

Jailer Magnus formally booked Bland into the jail at approximately 8:15 p.m.

During that process, Jailer Magnus asked Bland several of the same questions

Jailer Prudente previously asked, and documented Blands responses

electronically, as follows:13

11See Exhibit F (Prudente Affidavit).12See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).13See Exhibit H (Screening Form Completed by Magnus).



8/170

- 8 -

Thereafter, Jailer Magnus asked Bland questions specifically relating to suicide,

and Bland provided answers conflicting with the answers she had previously

provided:

Despite providing conflicting informationwhich is not unusual as detainees

cool off in the time between intake and bookingBland did not provide any

information to suggest she may be suicidal, and the circumstances surrounding her



9/170

- 9 -

arrest did not suggest that she may be suicidal.14 Bland also had not been arrested

for any particularly embarrassing offensei.e., child pornography or sexual

assaultor for any offense which would likely carry a lengthy prison sentence,

offenses which are more likely to result in suicide.15 She was also more angry than

depressed, expressly telling Magnus, Im not depressed. Im pissed off.16

Finally, Bland was allowed, as a courtesy to her, to make free telephone calls on

the jail staffs phone. She made telephone contact with a male friend (LaVaughn

Mosley), and she was expected to bond out of jail the following day.17

Accordingly, Jailer Magnus did not have any subjective awareness that Bland may

be suicidal.18

Given the lack of information to suggest Bland may be suicidal, Jailer

Magnus proceeded to classify Bland for housing. According to state standards,

Bland was classified as medium-assaultive.19 The cell at the Waller County Jail

for medium-assaultive female detainees is a multi-person cell. However, there

were no other female detainees in that classification when Bland was arrested, and

Bland was housed alone.20

14See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).15See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).16See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).17See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).18See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).19See Exhibit I (Classification Records).20See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).



10/170

- 10 -

Jailer Magnus remained on duty until 7:00 a.m. on July 11, 2015.21 During

the remainder of that shift, she had no other significant interaction with Bland, and

she did not observe any behavior that would suggest Bland may have been

suicidal.22 After Jailer Magnus shift ended at 7:00 a.m. on July 11, she next

worked from 7:00 p.m. on July 11 to 7:00 a.m. on July 12 (Saturday night and

early Sunday morning).23 During that shift, she had no significant interaction with

Bland, and she did not observe any behavior that would suggest Bland may have

been suicidal.24

After Magnus shift ended Sunday morning at 7:00 a.m. on July

12, Magnus did not work in the jail again until after Blands suicide on July 13,

2015.25

Although Magnus was not involved in the process of presenting Bland to a

magistrate, Bland saw a magistrate judge on Saturday, July 11, 2015.26 After her

bond was set, Bland was given several additional free phone calls.27 She attempted

to reach LaVaughn Mosley several times, but it appeared he was intentionally

ignoring her calls.28 She also made contact with at least one of her sisters, who

advised she would not bail Bland out of jail.29 Bland also made contact with a bail

21See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).22See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).23See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).24See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).25See Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).26See Exhibit J (Smith Affidavit).27See Exhibit J (Smith Affidavit).28See Exhibit J (Smith Affidavit).29See Exhibit J (Smith Affidavit).



11/170

- 11 -

bondsman, who in turn made contact with Blands mother and possibly other

relatives. However, none of her friends and family provided the approximately

$515 necessary to bail her out of jail.

D. Blands Suicide

As noted above, Prudente did not work over the weekend, and Magnus did

not work after 7:00 a.m. on July 12. At that time, Bland had not exhibited any

signs of suicidal tendencies. On the morning of Monday, July 13, 2015more

than 60 hours since Prudente had worked, and more than 24 hours since Magnus

had workedjail personnel visually observed Bland at 5:01 a.m. and 5:54 a.m.30

Jail personnel also visually observed Bland at 6:42 a.m. and 6:56 a.m.31 There was

a shift change at 7:00 a.m., and jail personnel again visually observed Bland at

7:07 a.m.32 The jail controller also had an intercom communication with Bland at

7:55 a.m., in which she requested additional free phone calls.33

Shortly thereafter, and at some point between 7:55 a.m. and 8:58 a.m.and

likely between 7:55 a.m. and 8:30 a.m.34Bland committed suicide by hanging

herself in the jail cell, using a rolled/twisted plastic trash bag as a ligature, and

tying it around the support of a privacy partition in the cell.35 It is apparent now

30 See Exhibit K (Video from July 13, 2015). Blands cell is to the right side of the video and is not visible.However, jail personnel who walk in that hallway and look to the left are looking into Blands cell.31See Exhibit K (Video from July 13, 2015).32See Exhibit K (Video from July 13, 2015).33See Exhibit L (Door & Intercom Log); Exhibit M (Incident Report) at pp. 2-4.34See Exhibit N (EMS Records from Suicide) (noting likely death 20-50 minutes before EMS arrived at 9:06 a.m.).35See Exhibit C (Autopsy Report).



12/170

- 12 -

that Blands inability to secure her release from jailand her family and friends

refusal to bail her out of jailled her to commit suicide.

Jail personnel discovered Bland at 8:58 a.m. At that time, Jailer Prudente

had not been on duty in over 60 hours, since 7:00 p.m. on Friday, July 10, 2015.

Jailer Magnus had not been on duty in over 24 hours, since 7:00 a.m. on Sunday,

July 12, 2015. Accordingly, they could not possibly have been involved in

providing any medical care, or the alleged lack of same.

Nonetheless, jail personnel responded immediatelyjailers used a radio to

request that the cell door be opened, the controller immediately opened same, and

jail personnel held Bland up while removing the ligature.36 Jail personnel notified

EMS, who arrived within minutes.37 While waiting for EMS to arrive, jail

personnel administered CPR.38 EMS personnel declared Bland dead within

minutes of arriving on site.39 The autopsy confirmed that Bland had committed

suicide by hanging herself.40

E. County Policies

The Waller County Sheriffs Office has Jail and Detention Policies and

Procedures which provide, in relevant part:

36See Exhibit M (Incident Report) at pp. 2-4.37See Exhibit M (Incident Report) at pp. 2-4; Exhibit N (EMS Records from Jail).38See Exhibit M (Incident Report) at pp. 2-4; Exhibit N (EMS Records from Jail).39See Exhibit M (Incident Report) at pp. 2-4; Exhibit N (EMS Records from Jail).40See Exhibit C (Autopsy Report).



13/170

- 13 -

- How to Use This Manual. Jail personnel must understand and followthe procedures, and it is an important requirement to be familiar withthe details of this manual and readily apply its guidelines. Jail personnelare further instructed to read the operational policies, ask questions asneeded, and repeat the process until you are confident you know eachpolicy well enough to apply it in spirit as well as in practice.41

- Objective Statements. The first objective is Protection of Life and

Property.42- Management Philosophy & Goals. The Jail Division provides

reasonable detention services in a safe, secure, and humaneenvironment, according to applicable statutes and regulations, andwithin prescribed ethical and constitutional limits. Goals includeproviding clean, safe, and healthy living conditions, providing forbasic medical, dental, and psychiatric needs, and providing due

process and other legal safeguards.43

-

Professional Conduct. All jail personnel are instructed to rememberthat they are sworn to uphold the law and abide by the policies andprocedures of this agency, while protecting the rights of all people asafforded by the Constitution of the United States of America and theState of Texas.44

- Rules of Staff Conduct. Jail personnel are instructed to follow both the

spirit and content of the rules and policies established, and to obey allgeneral and special rules and orders, and all applicable laws.45 Jailpersonnel are further instructed to be attentive to their duties at alltimes.46 Supervisors are further instructed to enforce the rules, policies,and procedures, including preventing violations of rules and takingimmediate action to correct deficiencies.47

- Officer & Employee Discipline. Supervisors are instructed to disciplinejail personnel for violations of policies.48

In addition to these general provisions, the Policies and Procedures also

provide specific guidance on operations, including:

41See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 1.01, How to Use This Manual.42See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 1.02, Objective Statements.43See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 2.01.44See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 2.04.45See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 2.07, General Guidelines, and Rules 1.1 1.3.46See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 2.07, Rules 2.1 and 2.3.47See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 2.07, Rule 2.2.



14/170

- 14 -

- Jail Admission. At initial intake, jail personnel are required to observethe arrestee for obvious signs of injury or illness, and refer any arrestee inneed of immediate emergency medical or mental attention to theappropriate provider. If the arrestee is accepted into the jail, then jailpersonnel are required to observe inmates in holding or detoxificationcells at intervals of every 30 minutes.49 Thereafter, detainees are given atleast two telephone calls within the first four hours, on a prepaid orcollect basis.50 Upon booking, the Medical, Dental, Mental, and SuicideScreening form must also be completed based on jail personnelsinterview of the detainee, with suicidal claims or threats to be reported tothe Jail Administrator.51 Finally, detainees must be housed in accordancewith the classification system.52

- Management of Security Program. Jail personnel on the floor for

direct inmate supervision must provide visual, face-to-face observation

of inmates at least once every hour. Observation is performed at leastevery thirty minutes in areas where inmates are known to be assaultive,potentially suicidal, mentally ill, or who have demonstrated bizarrebehavior. There must be two-way voice communication capabilitybetween inmates and staff at all times.53

-

Sanitation Plan. The jail has a sanitation plan which describes thecleaning duties and schedule to maintain a healthy housing and workenvironment,54which includes a waste disposal plan.55

- Health Services Plan. The jail has a comprehensive health services plan

for medical, dental, and mental health evaluation and treatment, whichprovides that medical and mental health services will not be neglected,and care will be provided on a reasonable basis. The plan also calls foran initial intake evaluation, along with continued observation andevaluation, and a plan for addressing emergency medical situations.56

- Mental Disabilities & Suicide Prevention Plan. In addition to the

comprehensive health services plan, the jail also has a separate policyaddressing suicide prevention. The policy is to provide the appropriatecare for any inmates who have mental problems or who may be suicidal.

48See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 3.03.49See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 4.02, Initial Processing, Steps 2 and 9.50See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 4.02, Telephone Access; Policy 12.05, Telephone Plan.51See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 4.02, Medical, Dental, Mental, and Suicide Screening.52See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 4.02, Housing Assignment; Policy 4.03, Classification Plan.53See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 5.01, Staff Visibility.54See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 9.01.55See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 9.02.56See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 11.01.



15/170

- 15 -

To accomplish that goal, all staff receive two hours of annual training onrecognizing, supervising, documenting, and handling potentially suicidalinmates.57 In the event of any outcry or other information indicating aninmate may be suicidal, jail personnel are to contact the local MHMRagency for an immediate mental health screening.58

-

Mental Disabilities & Suicide Prevention Plan (contd). Further,potentially suicidal inmates will be placed on suicide watch, with nopersonal property or bed linens, and only a paper gown to wear.Depending on the determination of the local MHMR agency as to thedegree of suicide risk posed, potentially suicidal inmates will then beobserved every 5, 15, or 30 minutes.59

-

Mental Disabilities & Suicide Prevention Plan (contd). In the eventof an attempted suicide, specific instructions are provided for responding,including, for example, cutting down the inmate if hanging, and

rendering first aid.60

The County also took other action to ensure that jail personnel were

reminded of policies and procedures. For example, the jail supervisors periodically

sent reminder emails to jail personnel, and the jail maintained a Memo Book,

which all jail personnel could access and were instructed to review. The Memo

Book contained printed versions of some of the emails jail supervisors sent to jail

personnel, including reminders on how to complete suicide screening forms, what

to do with detainees placed on suicide watch, and conducting regular face-to-face

observation of detainees.61

57See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 11.02, Training.58See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 11.02, Identification.59See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 11.02, Housing & Supervision.60See Exhibit O (Jail Policies) at Policy 11.02, Response to Suicide or Suicide Attempt.



16/170

- 16 -

F. Jailer Training

Jailer Elsa Magnus has been a licensed jailer in Texas since March 19, 2008,

and held a temporary jailers license before that.62 Becoming a licensed jailer

requires a 96-hour course on jail operations from an accredited academy, and

passing a written test. Jailer Magnus had the following, formal training:

Feb. 22, 2008: Completed Basic Jail Course (96 hours)Sep. 30, 2009: Completed LEMIT Jail Course (8 hours)Jul. 9, 2010: Completed County MHMR Course (2 hours)May 9-13, 2011: Completed TJA Jail Course (appx. 32 hours)

May 31, 2011: Completed LEMIT Jail Course (4 hours)Sep. 29, 2011: Completed LEMIT Jail Course (8 hours)Dec. 11, 2012: Completed County Suicide Prevention Course (2 hours)Jun. 13, 2014: Completed Jail Classification Course (4 hours)Dec. 16, 2014: Completed LEMIT Legal Issues Course (4 hours)Dec. 17, 2014: Completed LEMIT Suicide Course (4 hours)63

Jailer Oscar Prudente became a licensed jailer in Texas on April 15, 2014.

He also became a licensed peace officer in Texas on May 11, 2015. He received

the following, formal training:

Apr. 4, 2014: Completed Basic Jail Course (96 hours)Jun. 13, 2014: Completed Jail Classification Course (4 hours)May 6, 2015 : Basic Peace Officer Course (643 hours)64

61See Exhibit P (Excerpts from Memo Book).62See Exhibit Q (Excerpts from Magnus Training Records); see also Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).63See Exhibit Q (Excerpts from Magnus Training Records); see also Exhibit G (Magnus Affidavit).64See Exhibit R (Excerpts from Prudentes Training Records); see also Exhibit E (Prudente Affidavit).



17/170

- 17 -

IV.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

In support of this Motion, County Defendants rely on, and incorporate by

reference as if set forth at length herein, the following evidence:

Exhibit A Affidavit and Complaint for Arrest Warrant;Exhibit B EMS Records from Arrest;Exhibit C Autopsy Report;Exhibit D Trooper Encinias Intake Form;Exhibit E Jailer Prudentes Intake Form;Exhibit F Jailer Prudentes Affidavit;Exhibit G Jailer Magnus Affidavit;

Exhibit H Jailer Magnus Screening Forms;Exhibit I Classification Records;Exhibit J Jailer Dormic Smiths Affidavit;Exhibit K Video from July 13, 2015 (on CD/DVD);Exhibit L Door/Intercom Log;Exhibit M Excerpts from Waller County Incident/Offense Report;Exhibit N EMS Records from Suicide;Exhibit O Excerpts from Waller County Jail Policies & Procedures;Exhibit P Excerpts from Waller County Jail Memo Book;Exhibit Q Excerpts from Jailer Magnus Training Records; andExhibit R Excerpts from Jailer Prudentes Training Records.

V.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

A party in a lawsuit may move a court to enter summary judgment before

trial. FED.R.CIV.P. 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party

establishes that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and/or the moving party

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56; Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986); Stewart v. Murphy, 174 F.3d 530, 533 (5th

Cir. 1999). [T]he substantive law will identify which facts are material, and only



18/170

- 18 -

disputes about those facts will preclude the granting of summary judgment.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A material fact is one

that might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law, and a dispute

about a material fact is genuine if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could

return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.; Smith v. Brenoetty, 158 F.3d 908,

911 (5th Cir. 1998).

Once the movant meets its burden under Rule 56, the non-movant must

designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine dispute for trial.

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).

Conclusive assertions, unsupported by specific facts presented in admissible

evidence opposing the motion for summary judgment, are insufficient to defeat a

proper motion for summary judgment. Lujan v. Natl Wildlife Fedn, 497 U.S. 871

(1990). The party opposing summary judgment must respond by setting forth

specific evidence in the record and articulating the precise manner in which that

evidence supports his or her claim. Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d 1527, 1537 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 513 U.S. 871 (1994).



19/170

- 19 -

VI.

ARGUMENTS &AUTHORITIES

A. Section 1983 Failure to Prevent Suicide Claims Against Jailers Magnus

and Prudente Fail as a Matter of Law.

It appears Plaintiff is claiming that Jailers Magnus and Prudente were (1)

deliberately indifferent to Blands alleged serious risk of suicide by failing to

adequately monitor her and (2) deliberately indifferent to Blands serious medical

need after she was discovered hanging in her cell.65 As set forth below, the

evidence conclusively establishes Jailers Magnus and Prudente were not

deliberately indifferent to any serious risk of suicide or serious medical need.

Further, Jailers Magnus and Prudente are entitled to qualified immunity because

they did not violate any of Blands clearly established rights, and their conduct was

objectively reasonable.

i.

No Subjective Awareness of Serious Risk of Suicide.

Bland had a right under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution to protection from known suicidal tendencies during her detention.

See Thompson v. Upshur County, Tex.,245 F.3d 447, 457 (5th Cir. 2001); Jacobs

v. West Feliciana Sheriffs Dept, 228 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2000); Nunez v.

Deviney,4:06CV0579BE, 2007 WL 2059726, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 17, 2007)

(citingHare v. City of Corinth, Miss.,74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir.1996)).

65See Document No. 22 at Count III (claims against Elsa Magnus) and Count V (claims against Oscar Prudente).



20/170

- 20 -

In Hare,the Fifth Circuit adopted the subjective deliberate indifference test

for claims of failure to protect from suicide risk. See Hare v. City of Corinth,

Miss.,74 F.3d 633, 647-48 (5th Cir.1996). To establish such a claim, a plaintiff

must establish: (1) that the defendant had subjective knowledge of a substantial

and serious risk that the pretrial detainee might commit suicide; and (2) that the

defendant nevertheless disregarded the risk of suicide by responding to it with

deliberate indifference.Id.at 650. In other words, 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 that inference. Jones v. Throckmorton

County, Tex., 1:02CV182C, 2004 WL 419811, at *4 (N.D. Tex. March 8,

2004) (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)). An officials

failure to alleviate a significant risk that he should have perceived but did not,

while not commendable, does not rise to the level of deliberate indifference.

Nunez v. Deviney,4:06CV0579BE, 2007 WL 2059726, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July

17, 2007) (citing Farmer,511 U.S. at 838).

Courts have noted that [s]uicide is inherently difficult for anyone to predict,

particularly in the depressing prison setting. Domino v. Texas Dept. of Criminal

Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Collignon v. Milwaukee Co.,163

F.3d 982, 990 (7th Cir. 1998)). As such, a detainees comments that his arrest will

cause him to lose everything or that his life will be over or other comments



21/170

- 21 -

that he is exasperated with living, do not demonstrate that officials have actual

knowledge of a substantial risk of suicide. See, e.g., Branton v. City of Moss Point,

261 Fed. Appx. 659, 661 (5th Cir. 2008). Additionally, a detainees affirmative

answer on an intake screening exam, indicating that he recently lost a family

member or was worried about other major problems, does not establish actual

subjective knowledge of a suicide risk. See, e.g., Whitt v. Stephens County, 236

Fed. Appx. 900, 903 (5th Cir. 2007).

When a detainee reports a prior suicide attempt, courts look to its temporal

proximity. In such scenarios, courts have held that knowledge of a suicide attempt

three years before the detention could not establish actual awareness of a serious

risk of suicide, see, e.g., Calton v. Livingston,No. H092507, 2011 WL 2118700,

at *13 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011), but courts have found a fact issue as to whether a

jailer whopersonallyplaced a detainee on suicide watch three months before the

detention at issue had actual awareness of a serious risk of suicide, see, e.g.,

Shepard v. Hansford County, --- F.Supp.3d ---, No. 2:14 CV-00147, 2015 WL

3368001 (N.D. Tex. May 22, 2015).

Here, Bland reported a prior suicide attempt after she lost a baby on or about

May 30, 2014. However, she also reported that she was not suicidal. Jailers

Prudente and Magnus were face-to-face with Bland, and observed her demeanor,

and both concluded that she was not facing a serious risk of suicide. For example,



22/170

- 22 -

Blands prior suicide attempt was remote in time, and the circumstances

surrounding her prior suicide attempti.e., taking pills after losing a babywere

not of the same nature as being arrested in connection with a traffic stop. Bland

also had not been arrested for any particularly embarrassing offensei.e., child

pornography or sexual offenseor any offense that would likely carry a lengthy

prison sentence, offenses which are more likely to result in a suicide attempt. She

was also more angry than depressed, expressly telling Magnus, Im not depressed.

Im pissed off. Finally, she made telephone contact with a male friend

(LaVaughn Mosley) when she was booked, and she expected to be bonded out of

jail the following day. None of these circumstances support a conclusion that

Bland faced a serious risk of suicide.

Jailers Magnus and Prudente have also both confirmed that they were not

subjectively aware of any risk of suicide. That conclusion is supported by the fact

that Bland did not attempt suicide until after she had been in jail for two-and-a-half

days, and her family and friends had refused to bail her out of jail. For the

foregoing reasons, the evidence conclusively establishes that Jailers Magnus and

Prudente were not subjectively aware of any serious risk of suicide, defeating

Plaintiffs claims against them.



23/170

- 23 -

ii. No Deliberate Indifference.

As noted above, Jailers Magnus and Prudente were not subjectively aware of

any serious risk of suicide. Accordingly, they could not have been deliberately

indifferent to any such risk. See, e.g., Brumfield, 551 F.3d at 332 (cannot be

deliberately indifferent if no known suicide danger).

Further, [d]eliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet.

Domino v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). It

must be proven that the officials refused to treat him, ignored his complaints,

intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would

clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical needs. Id. Put another

way, a plaintiff must establish more than mere negligence, and even more than

gross negligence. See Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.,74 F.3d 633, 646 (5th Cir.

1996). In this case, there is no evidence of deliberate indifference, and Plaintiffs

claims fail as a matter of law.

iii. Qualified Immunity No Violation of Clearly Established Law.

Defendant Jailers Magnus and Prudente are also entitled to qualified

immunity on the claim that they failed to prevent Blands suicide. At the outset,

qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability

unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly

established at the time of the challenged conduct. Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. ---,



24/170

- 24 -

135 S.Ct. 2042, 2044 (Jun. 1, 2015). To be clearly established, a right must be

sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he

is doing violates that right. Id. As such, qualified immunity protects all but the

plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. Id.

The United States Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of whether

detainees have a clearly established right to the proper implementation of adequate

suicide prevention protocols. See Taylor, 135 S.Ct. at 2044. That is essentially the

issue in this case because, whatever allegations Plaintiff makes, she is arguing that

Prudente and Magnus violated Blands rights by failing to prevent her suicide. On

that issue, the Supreme Court held that there is no such clearly established right.

More specifically, in Taylor, a nurse used a screening form to ask the

arrestee questions that might indicate whether he was suicidal. Id. at 2043.

Although he was on psychiatric medication and disclosed a prior suicide attempt,

he indicated he was not suicidal at the time of the screening. Id. Accordingly, the

nurse did not put him on suicide watch. Id. The following morning, jail personnel

observed the detainee acting normally, but he committed suicide at approximately

11:35 a.m., on the morning following his arrest. Id.

On June 1, 2015, the Taylor court held that there was no clearly established

right, as follows:

No decision of this Court establishes a right to the properimplementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols. No



25/170

- 25 -

decision of this Court even discusses suicide screening or preventionprotocols. And to the extent that a robust consensus of cases ofpersuasive authority in the Courts of Appeals could itself clearlyestablish the federal right respondent alleges, City and County of SanFrancisco v. Sheehan,575 U.S. , , 135 S.Ct. 1765, 1779, L.Ed.2d (2015), the weight of that authority at the timeof Barkes's death suggested that such a right did notexist.See,e.g.,Comstock v. McCrary,273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir.2001) (the right to medical care for serious medical needs does notencompass the right to be screened correctly for suicidaltendencies); Tittle v. Jefferson Cty. Comm'n,10 F.3d 1535, 1540(11th Cir. 1994)(alleged weaknesses in the [suicide] screeningprocess, the training of deputies[,] and the supervision of prisonersdid not amount to a showing of deliberate indifference toward the

rights of prisoners);Burns v. Galveston,905 F.2d 100, 104 (5th Cir.1990) (rejecting the proposition that the right of detainees toadequate medical care includes an absolute right to psychologicalscreening);Belcher v. Oliver,898 F.2d 32, 3435 (4th Cir.1990) (The general right of pretrial detainees to receive basicmedical care does not place upon jail officials the responsibility toscreen every detainee for suicidal tendencies.).

Id.at 2044-45. The Taylor court went on to hold that the individual defendants at

issue were entitled to qualified immunity. Id.at 2045.

Similarly, Fifth Circuit precedent provides that jailers must take measures

to prevent inmate suicides, but only once they know of the suicide risk, Calton

v. Livingston, No. H092507, 2011 WL 2118700, at *16 (S.D. Tex. May 27,

2011) (emphasis added), and there is no clearly-established right to any specific

actions jail officials must take, once they know of a suicide risk. See Jacobs v.

West Feliciana Sheriffs Dept.,228 F.3d 388, 39495 (5th Cir. 2000).



26/170

- 26 -

Further, to the extent Plaintiff would argue that alleged violations of state

statutes or regulations relating to suicide screening and prevention give rise to a

clearly-established right, that argument has already been considered and rejected.

More specifically, in Davis v. Scherer, the Supreme Court held that [o]fficials

sued for constitutional violations do not lose their qualified immunity merely

because their conduct violates some statutory or administrative provision because

the law requires that the constitutional right allegedly violated be clearly

established, and not simply that a state statutory or administrative provision be

clearly established. 468 U.S. 183, 194-96 & n.12 (1984). Accordingly, state

statutes and regulations, or the alleged violation of same, have no relevance to the

issue of whether a constitutional right was clearly established, or was violated.Id.

In this case, Defendant Jailers Magnus and Prudente conducted suicide

screenings of Bland, and she indicated she was not suicidal. She disclosed a prior

suicide attempt, but based on the totality of the circumstances, including Blands

demeanor and the charges against her, Magnus and Prudente did not find her to be

suicidal. Bland did not have a clearly-established right to any different or more

effective implementation of suicide prevention protocols. There is also no

evidence that any different or more effective protocols would have prevented her

suicide in this case. Accordingly, Defendant Jailers Magnus and Prudente are

entitled to qualified immunity.



27/170

- 27 -

iv. Qualified Immunity No Objectively Unreasonable Conduct.

Next, even if Bland had a clearly established right to the proper

implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocolswhich is denied, and is

contrary to Supreme Court authority from June 2015Defendant Jailers Magnus

and Prudente would still be entitled to qualified immunity because their actions

were objectively reasonable.

More specifically, the qualified immunity analysis is two-fold; even if there

was a violation of a clearly-established right, the governmental actor is still entitled

to qualified immunity if his actions were objectively reasonable. See Freeman v.

Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 41011 (5th Cir. 2007). Whether an official's conduct was

objectively reasonable is a question of law for the court, not a matter of fact for the

jury. Williams v. Bramer,180 F.3d 699, 703 (5th Cir. 1999). The Court simply

asks whether it would be objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that his

actions were constitutional. See Lytle v. Bexar County, Tex.,560 F.3d 404, 410

(5th Cir. 2009).

At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff must present evidence to raise a

fact issue material to the resolution of the questions whether the defendants acted

in an objectively reasonable manner in view of the existing law and facts available

to them. Calton v. Livingston,No. H092507, 2011 WL 2118700, at *15 (S.D.

Tex. May 27, 2011) (quoting Lampkin v. City of Nacogdoches, 7 F.3d 430, 435



28/170

- 28 -

(5th Cir. 1993)). Notably, the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that

conduct that violates even clear state statutes or regulations is objectively

unreasonable; all that matters is whether the conduct was objectively

unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional right at issue. Davis

v. Scherer,468 U.S. 183, 194-96 & n.12 (1984) (rejecting lower courts holding

that if an official violates his agencys explicit regulations, which have the force

of state law, that is evidence that his conduct is unreasonable.)

In this case, there is no evidence that Defendant Jailers Magnus and

Prudentes actions were objectively unreasonable. To the contrary, they assessed

Bland, asked her several questions in an attempt to determine whether she was

suicidal, and concluded based on the totality of the evidence that she was not.

Accordingly, summary judgment is appropriate.

B.

Section 1983 Failure to Provide Medical Care Claims Against Jailers

Magnus and Prudente Fail as a Matter of Law.

i. No Subjective Awareness of Serious Medical Need.

Plaintiff alleges that Jailers Magnus and Prudente were deliberately

indifferent to Blands need for medical treatment after she was found hanging in

her cell on Monday morning. However, Jailers Magnus and Prudente had not

worked in the jail in over 24 and 60 hours, respectively, and were not present when

Bland committed suicide, or the time shortly thereafter. Accordingly, they could



29/170

- 29 -

not possibly have had any subjective awareness of any serious medical need after

Bland was discovered hanging, and this claim fails as a matter of law.

ii. No Deliberate Indifference.

Because Jailers Magnus and Prudente were not present when Bland

committed suicide, or the time shortly thereafter, they were not aware of any

serious medical need. Accordingly, they could not have been deliberately

indifferent to any such need, and this claim fails as a matter of law.

iii.

Qualified Immunity.

Jailers Magnus and Prudente would also be entitled to qualified immunity on

this claim because there is no evidence that any of their actions with respect to any

alleged lack of medical care after Bland was discovered hanging violated any

clearly-established constitutional rights, or were objectively unreasonable.

C.

Negligence Claims Against Jailers Magnus and Prudente Fail as a Matter

of Law.

As noted above, negligent acts and omissions are categorically below the

threshold of constitutional torts. Nonetheless, Plaintiff asserts negligence claims

against Jailers Magnus and Prudente, alleging that they (1) failed to adequately

monitor Sandra Bland to keep her safe and secure, (2) failed to keep her free from

injury, (3) failed to keep her in a safe and suitable environment, (4) failed to

provide adequate medical care after she was found hanging, and (5) failed to



30/170

- 30 -

transport her to a medical facility after she was found hanging.66 As set forth

below, however, these state-law claims must be dismissed under the Texas Tort

Claims Act (TTCA) in favor of claims against the County.

The TTCA contains an election of remedies provision, which forces a

plaintiff to elect whether to assert claims against a governmental unit, or its

employees. TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE 101.106. Where a plaintiff files suit

against both a governmental unit and its employees, the employees shall

immediately be dismissed on the filing of a motion by the governmental unit. Id.

at (e). In this case, Plaintiff asserts negligence claims against Defendant Jailers

Magnus and Prudente, and against their governmental employer, Waller County.67

Accordingly, County Defendants move for dismissal of Plaintiffs negligence

claims against Defendant Jailers Magnus and Prudente.

D.

Negligence Claims Against Waller County Fail as a Matter of Law.

Plaintiff also asserts negligence claims against Waller County, alleging (1)

inadequate training of jail personnel, (2) inadequate policies regarding face-to-face

observation of jail detainees, (3) inadequate monitoring of Sandra Bland, (4)

failure to keep her safe and secure, (5) failure to keep her free from injury, (6)

failing to keep her in a safe and suitable environment, (7) failing to provide

adequate medical care after she was found hanging, and (8) failing to transport her

66See Document No. 22 at Count IV (claims against Elsa Magnus) and Count VI (claims against Oscar Prudente).



31/170

- 31 -

to a medical facility after she was found hanging.68 However, none of these

allegations relates to operation or use of motor-driven vehicles or equipment, and

none of these allegations relate to the condition or a governmental employees use

of tangible property, and Waller County is therefore immune from such claims.

More specifically, Waller Countys immunity for negligence claims is only

waived under the TTCA, which provides as follows:

A governmental unit in the state is liable for:

(1)

property damage, personal injury, and death proximately causedby the wrongful act or omission or the negligence of anemployee acting within his scope of employment if:

(A)

the property damage, personal injury, or death arisesfrom the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle ormotor-driven equipment; and

(B)

the employee would be personally liable to the claimantaccording to Texas law; and

(2)

personal injury and death so caused by a condition or use oftangible personal or real property if the governmental unitwould, were it a private person, be liable to the claimantaccording to Texas law.

TEX.CIV.PRAC.&REM.CODE 101.021. Plaintiff has not alleged any operation

or use of a motor-drive vehicle or motor-drive equipment, and the Countys

immunity is not waived under section (1). Next, Plaintiff has not alleged any

condition or use of tangible personal or real property, and the Countys

67See Document No. 22 at Count IV (claims against Elsa Magnus), Count VI (claims against Oscar Prudente), andCount VII (claims against Waller County).68See Document No. 22 at Count VII (claims against Waller County).



32/170

- 32 -

immunity is not waived under section (2). Plaintiff has not alleged any other

waiver of the Countys immunity, and there is none. Accordingly, Plaintiffs

negligence claims against the County should be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction.

E. Section 1983 Claims Against Waller County Fail as a Matter of Law.

Plaintiff also asserts Waller County is liable underMonell because it had an

official custom or policy that was the moving force behind alleged violations of

Blands rights.69

As set forth below, this claim fails as a matter of law because

Blands rights were not violated, and the County did not have any custom or policy

that was the moving force behind any alleged violation of Blands rights. In

reality, Waller County has policies and provisions in place to prevent suicides.

Plaintiff also asserts a failure to train claim against the County, alleging the

County did not train Jailers Magnus and Prudente on recognizing, supervising,

documenting, and handling mentally disabled and suicidal detainees.70 As set forth

below, this is demonstrably false as both Magnus and Prudente were trained on

these issues. Finally, Plaintiff alleges the County failed to have an established

procedure for visual, face-to-face observation of detainees every 60 minutes (or 30

minutes for suicidal detainees).71 This is also demonstrably false, as set forth

69See Document No. 22 at Count VIII.70See id.71See id.



33/170

- 33 -

below, because the County had policies providing for such observation, and

published reminders for all jailers.

i. No Respondeat Superior Liability.

To the extent Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on the County for the actions

of its employees, a local governmental entity cannot be held liable for a

constitutional tort simply because it employs a tortfeasor. Board of the County

Commrs of Bryan County, Okla. v. Brown,520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997).

ii.

No Monell Liability in This Case.

To establish liability against the County, Plaintiff would have to establish

the County adopted a policy or custom that caused a constitutional violation. See

id.; City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik,485 U.S. 112, 122 (1988); see also Duvall v.

Dall. County, Tex.,631 F.3d 203, 209 (5th Cir. 2011); Piotrowski v. City of Hous.,

237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff alleges the County violated Blands

rights in numerous respects, but her allegations are factually unsupported and

legally insufficient to support liability, as set forth below.

a.

Ignoring Threat of Suicide.

Plaintiff alleges it was County policy to ignore Blands threat of suicide.

However, Bland never threatened suicide, but instead confirmed to two different

jailers that she was not suicidal. See discussion supraat Part III.C. Accordingly,

this claim is factually baseless. In any event, the County had a suicide prevention



34/170

- 34 -

policy that required jailers to screen detainees for suicide risks, and to take action if

suicide risks were notedi.e., place the detainee on suicide watch, and refer the

detainee to a Mental Health and Mental Retardation (MHMR) facility. See

discussion supra at Part III.E. Accordingly, even if Bland presented a risk of

suicide which should have been discovered but was not, that was not the result of

any County policy.

b.

Screening Inmates for Suicide

As set forth above, the County had a suicide prevention policy that included

screening, referrals to MHMR, and suicide watch. See discussion supra at Part

III.E. The County also ensured that its screening officers were appropriately

trained on these issues. Plaintiffs claim that the County did not have any such

policy is baseless.

Again, to the extent any jailers did not follow County policies, same is

insufficient to support County liability. See, e.g., Calton v. Livingston,No. H09

2507, 2011 WL 2118700, at *12 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011) (officers failure to

follow prison rules does not warrant relief).

c.

Training Jailers on Suicide Risk Detection & Prevention.

Plaintiff next alleges the County failed to implement a suicide prevention

plan to train personnel on recognizing, supervising, documenting, and handling

suicidal detainees. This claim is also factually baseless because the County had



35/170

- 35 -

appropriate policies in place, and because all jailers were trained on these matters,

including Defendant Jailers Magnus and Prudente. See discussion supra at Part

III.E; Part III.F. Further, there is no evidence that any County policy was the

moving force behind Blands suicide, or the failure to prevent same. Ultimately,

Blands decision to commit suicide was hers alone, after she denied any suicidal

intentions to jail personnel, and after her friends and family refused to bail her out

of jail.

d.

Face-to-Face Observation of Detainees.

Plaintiff alleges the County violated Blands rights by failing to have an

established procedure for face-to-face observation of detainees every 60 minutes,

or 30 minutes for suicidal detainees. However, this allegation is factually

unsupported because County policy required such observation, and the County

routinely reminded jailers of the policy. See discussion supraat Part III.E.

To the extent any jailers failed to make a face-to-face observation, despite

County policy, that would not be sufficient to support County liability. See, e.g.,

Estate of Pollard v. Hood County, 579 Fed. Appx. 260 (5th Cir. 2014) (failure to

strictly comply with 15-minute observation orders not actionable); Calton v.

Livingston,No. H092507, 2011 WL 2118700, at *12 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011)

(officers failure to follow prison rules does not warrant relief). Further, there is no



36/170

- 36 -

evidence that any County policy was the moving force behind Blands suicide, or

the failure to prevent same.

e.

Structural Design of the Jail.

Plaintiff alleges the structural condition of the facility did not facilitate face-

to-face observations. However, this is, again, factually unsupported. Jail

personnel were not prevented from performing face-to-face observations by any

structural limitations at the Waller County Jail. Moreover, this complaint goes to

whether the County had a policy requiring face-to-face observation, which it did,

as discussed in the preceding sections. In any event, there is no evidence that the

jail had any structural condition that violated Sandra Blands rights.

f.

Inadequate Staffing.

Next, Plaintiff alleges that inadequate staffing prevented face-to-face

observations. This allegation is also factually unsupported. The jail had adequate

staffing under State Jail Commission standards, and there is no evidence that any

inadequate staffing affected jailers ability to perform face-to-face observations.

Moreover, this complaint goes to whether the County had a policy of requiring

face-to-face observation, which it did, as discussed above.

g.

Assigning Hashtags to Detainees Records

Plaintiff next alleges the County violated Blands rights by failing to assign

a hashtag to Blands records to bring Bland to the attention of mental health



37/170

- 37 -

personnel. This allegation is factually unsupported because the County had a

policy requiring screening detainees for suicide watch, and referring suicidal

detainees to Mental Health and Mental Retardation (MHMR). See discussion

supra at Part III.E.

To the extent any jailers failed to refer Bland for an MHMR evaluation,

despite County policy, that still would not be sufficient to support County liability.

See, e.g., Calton v. Livingston,No. H092507, 2011 WL 2118700, at *12 (S.D.

Tex. May 27, 2011) (officers failure to follow prison rules does not warrant

relief).

h.

Classification for Housing Assignments

The State Commission on Jail Standards publishes instructions on

classifying detainees for housing assignments. Waller County has adopted and

implemented those instructions as policy, and Bland was properly classified for

housing assignments in this case. See discussionsupraat Part III.C. Further, any

failure to follow rules or regulations regarding housing classifications is not

actionable, and claims based on same are frivolous. See, e.g., Reed v. Mgmt. &

Training Corp., No. 3:12-CV-1264-P-BH, 2012 WL 3020082 at *3 (N.D. Tex.

June 15, 2012).



38/170

- 38 -

i. Medical Care

The County also had a comprehensive policy addressing medical care for

detainees, including care in emergency situations. See discussion supra at Part

III.E. Despite Plaintiffs baseless allegation that County personnel did not provide

medical care after Bland was discovered hanging, the evidence establishes that

EMS personnel were immediately notified and responded within minutes. See

discussion supraat Part III.D. While jail personnel waited for EMS to arrive, they

performed CPR. See id. EMS personnel made the decision not to transport Bland

to see a physician after declaring her dead.

For all the foregoing reasons, Waller County did not have any official policy

or custom that was the moving force behind Sandra Blands decision to commit

suicide, or behind any alleged violation of her rights. Accordingly, Plaintiffs

claims fail as a matter of law, and summary judgment is appropriate.

VII.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants WALLER

COUNTY, ELSA MAGNUS, and OSCAR PRUDENTE pray that their Motion for

Summary Judgment be granted, that Plaintiffs section 1983 claims be dismissed

with prejudice, that her negligence claims be dismissed for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, that all costs be borne by the party incurring same, and for such other

and further relief to which Defendants may be justly entitled.



39/170

- 39 -

Respectfully submitted,

____________________________________Larry J. Simmons Attorney-in-ChargeState Bar No. 00789628Southern District of Texas No. 18830B. Eliot New Of CounselState Bar No. 24060328Southern District of Texas No. 884608GERMER PLLCP.O. Box 4915Beaumont, TX 77704(409) 654-6700 Telephone(409) 835-2115 Facsimile

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS,

WALLER COUNTY,ELSA MAGNUS AND

OSCAR PRUDENTE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of CountyDefendants Motionfor Summary Judgment has been forwarded to all known counsel of recordpursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on this the 11th day of November2015.

_________________________________Larry J. Simmons



40/170

IN THE UNITED ST TES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

GENEVA REED-VEAL,

Individually and as Mother and

Personal Representative of the

Estate of SANDRA BLAND,

deceased,

Plaintiff

VS.

IVIL ACTION NO. 4:15-CV-02232

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED)

BRIAN ENCINIA, ET AL.,

Defendants

STATE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF WALLER

AFFIDAVIT OF BRIAN CANTRELL

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared

BRIAN CANTRELL,

who is personally known to me and who, being duly sworn

on oath to tell the truth, testified as follows:

I.

My name is Brian Cantrell. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years, have

never been convicted of a felony or crime of moral turpitude, and am

competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts

contained herein, and those facts are true and correct.

2.

am a Captain in the Waller County Sheriff's Office, the Jail Administrator

for the Waller County Jail, and a custodian of records for Waller County,

Texas ( County ). The records listed below and attached to County

Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment are true and correct copies and

exact duplicates of records maintained by the County in the ordinary course

of business. It was in the regular course of business for an employee or

representative of the County, with knowledge of the act, event, condition, or

opinion recorded, to make the record or to transmit information thereof to be

Page 1 of 2

Case 4:15-cv-02232 Document 39-1 Filed in TXSD on 11/11/15 Page 1 of 2


41/170

includedinsuchrecords, andsuchrecords weremadeat or near thetimeof

theeven or evens recorded or reasonabysoonthereafter. Thefolowng

exhbts attachedtoDefendan

Moionfor SummaryJudgmen aretrueand

correct copies of theorignals:

Exhbt A

Exhbt D

Exhbt E

Exhbt H

Exhbt I

Exhbt J

Exhbt L

Exhbt M

Exhbt 0

Exhbt P

Exhbt Q

Exhbt R

Afidavt andComplain for Arest Wrran;

Tooper EncinasInakeForm

Jailer Prudene

InakeForm

Jailer Mgnus

ScreenngForm;

CassificationRecords;

VdeofromJuy13 2015(onCDDVD;

Door/InercomLog

Excerpts fromWller CounyInciden/OfenseReport;

Excerpts fromWller CounyJail Poicies Procedures;

Excerpts fromWller CounyJail MmoBook

Excerpts fromJailer Mgnus

TainngRecords; and

Excerpts fromJailer Pruden s TainngRecords.

FURTHERAFFIANTSAYETHNOT

BRI N CANTRELL

SUBSCRBEDANDSWORNTO BEFOREME by

Brian Cantrell

on

ths the /04dayof November, 2015 tocertifywhchwtness myhandandseal of

office

JUSTIN E ....LEY LANE

Notary Pul

t.te of Texas

.f

Com

4

WO

epiely

n10

roar Pubicfor theSateof Texas

: .' Ne irdiroN,

Page 2 of 2



42/170

Cause Number

ea.

/-

1

.

20

/57

AFFIDAVIT and COMPLAINT FOR WARRANT OF ARREST AND DETENTION

' IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

The U ndersigned Meri t , who after being duly sw orn by m e, on oath m akes the fol lowing statement:

1

Trot, er BRIAN T ENCINIA 14271,

have ood reason to bel ieve and do bel ieve that

BLAND,

S NDR

ANNETTE B/F DOB

X, DUID 1111.111

on or about the

10July, 2015

in

WALLER

County, Texas, did then and there co mmit the offense of:

ASSAULT PUBLIC SERVANT (TXPC 22.01 (b)(1))

Felony -Class 3

My belief of the foregoing statement is based upon

personal knowledge,

who personally observed such offense:

On Friday, July 10, 2015, at approximately 04:27 p.m., I , Trooper Brian Encinia was on routine patrol in Waller

County, Texas.

I observed a sliver passenger car traveling southboun d on

Fm 1098 for failing to signal lane ch ange.

The vehicle w as identif ied as a

H undat Aura

I l l inois LP; B45378187638. The driver was identified as Bland, Sandra

Annette TX DL

8:

; through DPS P ierce Commu nications. I had Bland ex i t the vehicle to

further conduc t a safe traffic investigation. Bland

became

combative and uncooperative. Numerous commands were

given to Bland ordering her to exit the vehicle. Bland was removed from the car but became m ore combative. Bland

was placed in h andcuffs for off icer safety. Bland began swinging her elbow s at me and then kicked my right leg in the

shin.

had a pain in m y right leg and suffered small cuts on my right hand. Force was used to subch ie Bland to the

ground to w hich Bland co ntinued to f ight back. Bland was placed under arrest for Assault on Public Servant(TXPC

22.01 (B) (1)) . The vehicle was inventoried and released to Crown To wing. Bland w as transported and booked into

the W al ler County Jai l for Assault an Publ ic Servant(TXPC 22.01 (B ) (1)) .

This offense was committed against the peace and dignity of the state of Texas.

Affiant

Trooper BRIAN T ENCINIA 14271

SWO RN AND SUBS CRIBED TO before me by the said Af f iant on this the 10July , 2015 .

F7 , r

otary Public

l

eace Officer, in and for The State of Texas WALLER County

1

14

On this the I

ay o f

UY

2 0l-

I ereby acknowledge that I have examined the

foregoing Aff idavit and have determined that p robable

cause

does exist for the Issuance o f an arrest warrant

for the individual accused herein.

Magistrate In and tr WALLER County Texas

Page 1 of 1

B TE 1 4 2 7 1

Texas DP S - Affidavit

TX D PS Rep or t TX 4 D HI O N FW 1 9

DEF 82

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

C O U N T Y O F W A L L E R

X IN THE (MUNICIPALXJUSTIDE)

X I CO UNT Y X018 T R I CT ) CO UR T

(PCT OR C.C. AT

L W _ J

x IN W A L L E R C O U N T Y , T E X A S



43/170

Pat ient 1 of 1

ate: 07/10/2015

County EMS

Patient Care

Record

Name: .

Inc ident 7 150710-1723-WCE MSE SO

Latt'

.

t e l " l f . =

Patient information

A d d r a i i . t . t . ; I F

Clin ical Impression

P ri

-

31fri . -;- . de . JilliMMIMMIIIIMIIMINIMI

Erkdr ide

-

:l . r

4 -1OnV iiiiii

M iiiMME

Pir

tebel l laed'A 1: . : 414

First::

.

Addieis'2*

Middle.:-..V

. C i t i g t : ; ; ' '4 : : - .

G en der

State Anatomic

i:3

M3M523/11...1...11.111111111111111111110.

D(tticieMM'S.'41.

1MM

EVS

- . . " - - - "M e -

iittA

MINNIMENNINUMMI

Df i i t idegiV

TeiV: g

. 1 , 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 M .

III1II1

I1

II

1 1 I 1 I 1 1 . L r i i t 1 1 1

. : : . -

114 1 *er

a

1

M

11

N

'.

1

D O B . . r . . 1 ; .

:

-

V i i - 3 -4 1 : 7 1 7 Z F A ; i .

. - In':::','

. . . C o i f

' - . . . .4 1 a 1.

U S

Wig

1 1 J - . . . .

Pedi . Weil :

Phiilelati

,

: : .

- S S N 7

e ' 1 V : .

. .3

E t h t i l e i t i o 7 : ; , -

Rada ' ;5 t :

litassgkkA,.s

S' 'NW& - - ;'' ' ."1

-V:6'81I=MMININNIMINIEN

lt

. -'7MIAFiAgif:VAPi l le

E7.7: I r rATimranin2

A d V a n d i f i ' d 0

rebtiva:c.,_4'.' 4t

,

: : ; i : : 5 ' . ., 0 : . ; : e m :

R e t t d e n t S t a t i s

. - : : - . 7

,

: A 3 ' : ; ; , 1 1 " . . : 3 f . . . 7 ? ) 1 .

.:V:

Modication/Allergioafi l lstcry

B i r i te r i s W : C e i la .

, : O g W

1 - 7

:"

_ _ _ , I I . a . . . .

l

rrrIrMIEMMININIMINEN=IN INNI

M e d i c a t i o n s

A l l e r g i e s

I N I s t o r y

6 1 0 2 9 :"

iM:Vie

. . , .

1 0

. - 1 2 . ' "

:

::i41.

Ail..,K..-

5.?6,2. ` : . : . . . .

li...t.mg-""'"'''' '",

. , .

F

. T f

9

- . . . 9 , - . . - m , - . -

. : 1 5 : :

-

. - r : 1 5 ( . 7 5 - ' 6 " . . : 4 0

P - . : . . R r A r i .) . 1

.

4

-

Vil izet%gOi:/51 - A " M t g i r f k r i l l A : I : . ' ' ;r z * : -

1 , . r 4 n , ,

1 - _ . . . , 4 4 . i e t . :1 4 . : . : . .. s .

. . .,: . . 1 1 , . . . . ,

. . . t . . . - . . - 3 4 0 ; .

* 1 1 . : ; 1 1 ' ; W : t . . , 1 2 * : , ', . .1 , - . . 7 ' . 7 0 . , , . . , ;: : 1 1 4 : , .

,

, . , .

Mental Status

Mental S tatus

Not Assessed

Skin

Skin

Not Assessed

H E E N T

.

Head/Fac e

Not Assessed

E y e s

Not Assessed

Neck

Not Assessed

C he s t

C he s t

Not Assessed

Hear t Sounds Not Assessed

Lung Sounds

Not Assessed

Abdomen

Genera l

Not Assessed

Lef t Upper Not Assessed

Right Upper

Not Assessed

Left Lower

Not Assessed

Right Low er

Not Assessed

B a ck

Cerv ical

Not Assessed

Thoracic

Not Assessed

Lumbar/Sacral

Not Assessed

Pelv is /GU/GI

Pelv is /GU/GI

Not Assessed

Extremities

Left Arm

Not Assessed

Right Arm

Not Assessed

Left Leg Not Assessed

Right Leg

Not Assessed

Pulse

Not Assessed

Capi l lary Ref i ll Not Assessed

Neurological

Neurological

Not Assessed

.

ent Time:

M E D I C 2 0 D I S P A TC H E D T O A T R A U M A C A L L F R O M D 2 S T A T IO N . A O S T F A P T I N C U S T O D Y O F L E . P T

D I D N O T W A N T E M S . P T W O U L D N O T A L L O W

E M S T O A S S E S S O R T A K E V IT A L S . P T

W A S N O T I N A N Y D I S T R E S S . P T

L E F T I N C U S TO D Y O F L E A N D M E D I C 2 0 R E T U R N ED T O S E R V I C E .

OR

T . G ARRET T EMT - B

Narrat ive

Page 1 of 5

07/10/2015 17.12

PCR I 3af03I;e4-80013-47f2-1 8e7-a4d1011e857;

Elect ronica lly S igned by. . GA RRETT TIMO THY

D E F 0 0 0 8 2 1

EXHIBIT



44/170

Werik

Qounty EMS

Patient Care Record

Name: ,

4

ICniNalme:

k

2

. 1 4 1

,

RelatiobstiptO

Patient

'Addreds2::

..

Ne xt of Kin

citxt.1

010.1,7:

Addrivier3.:yt

szt

1

ddi t iona l Acencies

0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

M i l e a g e

: 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .

421

DoS4riatiOrea4V7.65,2,

Waded

.0

Stati,

1

-,:=.0,i;r4Vir,M1Y 101850.1

End

01855.1

TOtiviM103

4.,

0:75:91:'.....: 8.0

Del ays

Cti(jiitiir.

: : / ; ; ' u . . . 1 . ; ; ; M : j x 1

4 U N I T E D S T A T E S

` :6 ,g0 :01 ;;6J . 1 . : I t g l e

Incident : 150710-1723-WCEMSESO

Date: 07/10/2015

Patient 1 of 1

I n c i d e n t D e t a i ls

l id e u t to n N j x = r . V . : ' : ? . . 5 t .

D e s t i n a t i o n D e t a i l s

D i S p o S t t 0 1 1 ' it : 4 * " . 1 ;, , ', . $ . / ; : :. _ _ N o

-

treatment ,_No Transport - Other

I n d c le n t T i m e s

- P . S A P L C 1 0 1 1 : 1 : 6 . % ) , : .

-

Addreitf&Fil:041:,:ilffr'.A

FM 1098 &US 290

Trar israte idi r t iV1

. ' , : . o f e : S i , .

Tititgtitatie:iro'lr:VY'l'It.

Dittitta:Nanleit

Call ReteIVediit.:i. 16:52:00

ddrOSS-25.1;': W . . : = ? _ ' : ' . i :

Cr

7.C, f r : = : . . . :" . . , T e : " : ' k . Prairie View

Reereceded By:.z..::...4.'

,,

: = 1 : ' s f r i.- Law Enforcement

"Dispatched

. : A l ' . ;

16:52:00

State

- .:

, :- -

7

.

-

S . : v .-

. : : : : T .

,. . 4 . 2 : 4 . 1 . . . : :

TX

Destination :01:.r.:".:,-z'..:

-

:4 :

:

E f R c i u t e r a t r ? . : V r . . t .

1 6 : 5 2 : 0 0

m il

, i , .

N : ? r z " 4 ' . 1 : F k "

- . . ? . - : - 4 c

.;-,

7 9 4 5

Arktriitsgrr

L' ;

;1: - .14 , ; ,

'.Rasp on Sce ne ','i:

MedicUnit :-

" , : % . 7 i . ' r . s , : s . ,

Medic 20

Address 2

q i : ; . , . . . ' . . . : : : : :,,,

., i.:.

On Scene ;No,

i V . , .

.;

:

- 1 7 ; 0 1 : 0 0

RUtiThiriii:i.;;;

? 3 ' : . . " . .-

: . L . q . - '

911 Response (Emergency)

CO?::-;.

:,

' . . . . .

.q5;.

,

- '

.

,

; .,

,

i

,

....,

,

At Patieritv..

r i i . , -

,.

i?

17:01:00

Priority Sc ene :7-..

i . . : . , . . ;. . : . .

Lights/Sirens

Rate

. f : . . .

. : : '

1 4 ' . i

,::

..

DeggrESCdtie:1

, . ,

At,DettiricitiOn

t ,

4

17:05:00

sfiffir'

- : . : ',

,.'

. : '

-:

Y . . . .

B

Zp.s....:;; - : 7 , _ i r : : : - . . : : : .

. . :

-.-

Zone '

" =

5 ;. ,

.:.`;: .

:. C I T Y

O F

PRAIRIE VIEW

Zc irielc.:-V:fiSzi.6as.Y:' .- . ,

4 P.fiTiane

-

forted $:',;,'

Level of Service:',-,.......-

.

Corldition'at Destiriation',i:..

Civil gliiiied,56iW 17:05:00

Iff.Di' . 'CRilligi'. `.1.

EMD:

. aint

: ; . Y

.,

7:i :

Destiriatilati.Recond"#-

EMD Card

r i im b 8 r i , . . i . :

TritirrialReglitIVID:r.i.Nz;,.;i

- -..:-- ''''''N:MII.

neliVergt.mid

g

it :

4

: 0 2 ,4 VA

Crew Members

r r

14

....,_ . . .

.

OARRETT, TIMOTHY. ead

T-Basic-728259;

STEVENS, BRANDY river

MT-Pararkedic-720164;

.

tritsaitid .

1Nri T h ' N A . 2 0 1 1 . W

.. -

? - " *ve.:..1

i -....

. . 'NettireVa'. TRAUMA

insurance Details

Relat ioriShT;ToiPatient

editate

i.i .

4 '.

-

. : 7 4 . 1 : . 7 7 ; .

OW..melt ",:;1. . . ,. . imme diate

IiiitinicESSN'Zr

V .`.1B': ,.7 ;

fikb

-

ifid.,;;.

i t r . i : : 4 1

: : : :

eitYReffitedlijdifrl.

. ..:

.1ritired Delit":"5:4'.1:P

: - . . V .

,' : . . .

E'ritriaffifieurancii... '

E r i i n k i i i i i i . : A l z : : . : ' 4

.1 , ''.

Ackiries:s1.4::;k::::...:=:.

011oYT;.:_,Z AZ :

:.;:;i

d r i t t i O t

.z i c i

Addteits2Vit;if

4;./*ilf.

. . :

iautiltS.1 . 1 : 1 ' . . y . 4

4

:

i Phabifiet;:4..rAny

.5ipi:i

Atkritest.3..f.v.

,

.,',:::F.:1

-

. . . . ' . * : :

eedrida

'W.Ifts'rlii.

_ .

i t Y . A . P 1 - . . r j . ' 7: : : : ' : v . ' ; .

..xf.tfA.:=,; . ' :

oiloyX.

,

1 0 . 1 4 . 1 : 7 1 . q ; . : :

GLOVES

4 1

PANCeti.... .-P;t1;*...

-

Vit:

SeiridiritYPhiiiicitin*.VMA

Transfer Details

P . M i Ii ? 4 . 0 i l li 7 4 . 5 4 : 1

. 4 . 7 :

iintirktRiediltik.di

n

i

ASN'i

VATOPIJ:VIPM

Rodill ivirVRIVtiipif;14sX

0

1.1 qeffedsraVeiTt; ' oliditioefeitidetimig.%1V4

ISQa.Cecke;i .V.Z.: i l .,44

COrKlitiati'COde'MOdifiiiroL

TrineerpilV50n4:=.'.

0 , 1

A

.

.73

1164081-

. .... 5 .

7 1

r

B ii lin Authorization

Section I -Authorizat ion for B il ling

Page 2a 5

07/10/201517.31

PCRID: 3a103be4-80c8-47t2-Me744d101 le867.5

Electronically Signed by: GARRETT, TIMOTHY

DEF000822



45/170

Wa0 e ;

ounty EMS

Patient Care Record

Name:

Incident : 150710-1723-WCEMSESO

Date: 07/10/2015

Patient 1 of 1

Facili Si natures

e

il6ad Reoilider

A - '

,. .: & ". :. ;v P I T I M O T H Y G A R R E T T

CertifitiWoriteVer

MT-Basic-728259

.

v v

PE o i F i g f ' 7 . 0 1 7 1 : 115BRANDY STEVENS

1

rCeilitcatiOriVideLAROM EMT-Paramedic-720164;

P.rolildete

01dt:et

Certification. el

..g. 0 2

Paper

orieRticievedvZ

A l p A r a y . C t i n f ir m a t id n ' . g . M

Provider Sit natures

Page 5 of 5

7/10/201517.32

PCRID: 3af036e4-8008-4712-68e7-a4d1011e8675

Electronically Signed by: GARRETT

TIMOTHY

DEF000823



46/170

HARRIS COUNTY

INSTITUTE O F FORENSIC SCIENCES

SCIENCE. SERVICE. INTEGRITY.

Luis A. Sanchez, M.D,

Executive Director

ChM Medical Examiner

AUTOPSY REPORT

Case No. OC1 5-030

July 14, 2015

O N TH E BO DY O F

Sandra Annette Bland

CAUSE OF DEATH: Hanging

MANNER OF DEATH: Suicide

DATE OF DEATH: July 13, 2015

L A 0

2

11c

Sara N. Doyle, M.D.

MDDYY

Assistant Medical Examiner

EXHI IT

Noglog

1411

18135 Old Spanish Trail, Houston, Texas 77054 1 71 34004202 I 713-796-6844 F) I harrispounlytx.govfifs

DEFO 0 08 7 9



47/170


0C15-030

2

PO ST MO RT E M E X A MIN A T IO N O N T H E BO D Y O F


HISTORY:

his 28-year-old black woman, positively identified by fingerprint

comparison as Sandra Annette Bland, was pronounced dead at 9:06 a.m. on July 13,

2015 in the Waller County Jail at cell block 95, where she was found hanged in her

solitary jail cell.

AUTOPSY: The autopsy is performed at the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences

by Assistant Medical Examiner Sara N. Doyle, M.D., at the request and upon the written

authorization of the Honorable Charles J. Karisch, Justice of the Peace, Precinct 1, Waller

County, Texas, beginning at approximately 10:15 a.m. on July 14,2015. Texas Ranger

Ellison and investigator Parinello of the Waller County Sheriff's office are in attendance.

CLOTHING AND PERSONAL EFFECTS: When first viewed, the decedent is clad in two

orange shirts, a pair of orange pants, and underlying orange shorts. There are no

personal effects.

Received in the body bag with the decedent is a paper bag labeled Trash Bag Used as

Ligature; Removed on 7-13-15 @12:14 PM; Bland, Sandra Annette; B/F

OM

Custodial Death; Waller Co. Jail containing a transparent white plastic trash bag tied into

a ligature, which is subsequently described under the EVIDENCE OF INJURY paragraph.

EXTERNAL APPEARANCE: The body is that of a normally developed, 70 inch, 1 64-1 /2

pound black woman who appearance is consistent with the given age of 28 years. The

curly black hair measures up to approximately 4-1/2 inches in length. The eyes have

brown irides. The conjunctivae have no hemorrhage, petechiae or Jaundice. Each

earlobe is pierced twice. Multiple tattoos are over the body as documented on

photographs. A 1-Inch curvilinear scar is at the umbilicus. A 4-inch horizontal linear

scar is on the lower abdomen. A 1/4-inch scar is on the lateral left antecubital fossa.

A 3/8-inch oval raised scar is on the dorsal left wrist. The oral cavity has natural teeth

in good repair. The oral mucosa is atraumatic and has no petechiae. The neck is

remarkable for a ligature furrow as subsequently described under the EVIDENCE OF

INJURY paragraph. The torso and extremities are normally developed. The fingernails

are short and intact. The hands have no injuries. The genitalia, including the labia

DEF0068805 144



48/170


OCI 5-030

3

majora labia minora posterior fourchette and vaginal canal are free of injuries. Pasty

white discharge is at the vaginal introltus. The anus is unremarkable and has no

injuries.

POSTMORTEM CHANGES: There is marked rigor mortis of the upper and lower

extremities neck and jaw. Lividity is blanching pink-purple and is visible posteriorly

in the dependent areas as well as over the palms. The body is cold subsequent to

refrigeration.

THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTION

efibrillation pads are over the torso.

n

electrocardiogram adhesive pad is on the upper right arm.

EVIDENCE OF INJURY

I. HANGING: When first viewed a ligature furrow is around the neck. Anteriorly it is

oblique and is located at the level of the superior thyroid cartilage to the right of

midline and above the thyroid cartilage to the left of midline. It cants upward posterior

to the left ear across the left side of the neck. It is roughly horizontal at the right side of

the neck canting slightly upward posteriorly. The furrow at the anterior right lateral

and left lateral neck is dried brown and ranges from approximately 1/4 to 3/8 inch in

width. The highest point of the furrow is posteriorly at the central occipital

scalp/superior neck region where it is located slightly below the occipital prominence

and consists of a faint purple furrow approximately 3/8 - 1/2 inch wide which cants

downward toward the right side of the neck. The furrow is absent at the posterior left

neck for approximately 2 inches in horizontal dimension.

Internal examination of the anterior and posterior neck strap muscles reveals no focal

hemorrhages. S

waller county's motion for summary judgment

Documents