Perez v. Oakland County

Decision Date31 March 2005
Docket NumberNo. 03-70171.,03-70171.
Citation380 F.Supp.2d 830
PartiesAriel PEREZ, Sr., Personal Representative of the Estate of Ariel E. Perez, Jr., Plaintiff, v. OAKLAND COUNTY, Oakland County Sheriff's Department, Oakland County Sheriff Michael J. Bouchard, Roberta Rice, Deputy Michael Monroe, Deputy Terry Montgomery, Deputy John Jorganson, Dr. Sarath Hemachandra, and Unknown Oakland County Sheriff's Deputies, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Anthony A. Yezbick, Jon H. Berkey Assoc., Kenneth J. Wrobel, Jr., Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Plaintiff.

Steven M. Potter, Potter, Deagostino, Auburn Hills, MI, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

ROSEN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Ariel Perez, Sr., the father and personal representative of the estate of Ariel Perez, Jr., commenced this suit in this Court on January 14, 2003, alleging that the Defendants — including Oakland County, its Sheriff's Department, the Oakland County Sheriff, three sheriff's deputies, a caseworker, and a psychiatrist — violated Ariel, Jr.'s rights under the U.S. Constitution by failing to provide appropriate mental health treatment or monitoring while he was being held in the Oakland County Jail in the fall of 2002.1 Specifically, on November 22, 2002, while Plaintiff was incarcerated in this facility for a probation violation, he attempted suicide by hanging himself from a bed sheet tied to a vent in his cell. As a result of this attempt, Plaintiff died a few days later, on November 26, 2002. Plaintiff's complaint asserts federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as state-law claims of gross negligence.

On April 2, 2004, the Oakland County Defendants — specifically, the County, its Sheriff's Department, the Oakland County Sheriff, caseworker Roberta Rice, and sheriff's deputies Michael Monroe, Terry Montgomery, and John Jorganson — filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff has failed to establish a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights, that the evidence does not support a claim of supervisory or municipal liability, and that the individual County Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity from liability. On March 31, 2004, Defendant Sarath Hemachandra, a psychiatrist who provided mental health services to Plaintiff while he was housed at the Oakland County Jail, also moved for summary judgment, arguing that there is no evidentiary basis for finding that he violated Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights. Both of these motions have been fully briefed by the parties.

On August 26, 2004, the Court met with counsel in chambers to address Defendants' motions. Having considered the statements of counsel at this conference, and having reviewed the parties' briefs and the other materials in the record, the Court is now prepared to rule on these motions. This Opinion and Order sets forth the Court's rulings.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The factual record in this case is largely undisputed. Plaintiff's decedent, Ariel Perez, Jr., was 19 years old on the date of his death by suicide, November 26, 2002. Prior to his death, Plaintiff had been diagnosed as suffering from mental illness, and he had been incarcerated at the Oakland County Jail on a number of occasions. This background will be briefly recounted here, as it is relevant to the incidents at issue in this case.

A. Plaintiff's Prior Terms of Incarceration at the Oakland County Jail

Plaintiff's first period of incarceration at the Oakland County Jail spanned from November 16 to November 30, 2000. He then was incarcerated at this facility from April 14 through April 20, 2001. The record is not clear as to the reasons for these confinements, but they apparently passed without incident.

In February of 2001, Plaintiff pled guilty to two charges of felony larceny from a building, and he was given a six-month sentence on May 11, 2001. Plaintiff was 17 years old at the time, and it was determined that this sentence should be served at a boot camp. Plaintiff was returned to the Oakland County Jail in late June of 2001, however, after he reported to a boot camp counselor that he was experiencing hallucinations and hearing voices telling him to quit or escape. Upon returning to the jail, he was seen by Defendant Roberta Rice, an inmate caseworker. Plaintiff told Rice that he had been hearing voices for the past two years telling him to hurt himself, but that he did not listen to these voices. He also reported having tried to hang himself at ages 14 and 17.

Based on these issues, Plaintiff was sent for a psychiatric evaluation by Defendant Dr. Sarath Hemachandra on July 5, 2001. Dr. Hemachandra's examination report noted Plaintiff's history of hearing voices and considering suicide, and he also reported that Plaintiff had a learning disability, had been diagnosed as suffering from ADHD, and had taken Ritalin for several years as a child. Dr. Hemachandra diagnosed Plaintiff with a schizoaffective disorder, a personality disorder, and a learning disorder, and he prescribed psychiatric medication, individual counseling, and substance abuse counseling.2 More generally, Dr. Hemachandra opined that Plaintiff should be "watched closely." (Plaintiff's Response, Ex. 4, Hemachandra 7/5/2001 Evaluation Report.)

As a result of the assessments by Dr. Hemachandra and Rice, Plaintiff was housed with a roommate and placed on a 30-minute "active behavior watch" ("ABW"). This status was continued until July 10, 2001, when Rice met with Plaintiff upon learning that he was refusing to take his Zyprexa medication. Following this meeting, Rice discontinued the 30-minute ABW.

On August 20, 2001, Oakland County Jail personnel determined that Plaintiff was suicidal, and he was placed in an attorney booth until he could be seen by Rice. Plaintiff reported to Rice that he had been thinking about cutting himself with a razor or hanging himself with a sheet, and he requested placement in a single cell. Although Rice assured Plaintiff that his statements about suicide were being taken seriously, her notes reflect her view that Plaintiff was being "manipulative in order to get his way." (Plaintiff's Response, Ex. 9, Rice 8/20/2001 Report.) Rice also addressed Plaintiff's concerns about his medication, advising him that he could discuss the matter at his next scheduled psychiatric appointment on August 23, 2001. Finally, Rice informed Plaintiff that he would be moved to a front holding tank so that he could be closely supervised. Despite Plaintiff's statement that he would kill himself if moved to the holding tanks, this placement was made and Plaintiff was put on an "active suicide watch" ("ASW").

The next day, Rice apparently met with Plaintiff and downgraded his watch status from ASW to ABW. Plaintiff met again with Rice on August 27, 2001, reporting that he felt better and wished to be moved out of the holding cell. Plaintiff denied any suicidal ideation, and he agreed not to cause trouble if he were moved to the main jail. Citing this promise of cooperation and his apparently stable condition, Rice approved Plaintiff for reassignment to the main jail, and she discontinued his ABW status.

Rice then met with Plaintiff on September 19, 2001, upon learning that he had been placed in an observation cell as a result of a fight with another inmate. Plaintiff reported that he was not suicidal, that he had been taking his medications, and that he was doing okay prior to the fight. Rice discussed with Plaintiff the possibility that he be placed in a single cell, in light of his difficulties in getting along with other inmates, and Plaintiff agreed to this proposal. Rice determined that Plaintiff did not appear suicidal, and that no watch was necessary. However, in response to a query by jail officials whether Plaintiff could be placed in an 11-man cell, Rice opined that this placement was inappropriate in light of Plaintiff's age, mental health treatment, and learning disability. Plaintiff's incarceration apparently continued without incident until his release on October 9, 2001.

Plaintiff next was incarcerated at the Oakland County Jail for two days in late April of 2002, apparently as a result of an altercation with his father. While Plaintiff was being held, Rice spoke to his sister, who reported that Plaintiff had not been complying with his mental health treatment program, and that he was hearing voices telling him to kill himself. Rice informed Plaintiff's sister about the medications he had been given while housed at the jail, and she provided the phone numbers for two mental health treatment programs. Plaintiff also was incarcerated at the Oakland County Jail in late August of 2002, although the reasons for this are not clear from the record.

In the period between his incarcerations in April and August of 2002, Plaintiff received treatment at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital and the North Oakland Medical Center ("NOMC") for depression and suicidal thoughts. In connection with this treatment, a petition for hospitalization was prepared on Plaintiff's behalf, a physician diagnosed Plaintiff as suffering from schizophrenia, he was given antipsychotic medication, and he was placed in a psychiatric ward at NOMC from mid-May until early June. Similarly, in early October of 2002, shortly before his final incarceration at the Oakland County Jail, another petition for hospitalization was prepared on Plaintiff's behalf, after he appeared at the NOMC emergency room and reported that he was hearing voices telling him to hurt his sister and break into a restaurant. Plaintiff again was diagnosed with schizophrenia on this occasion.

B. Plaintiff's Final Period of Incarceration at the Oakland County Jail

Against this backdrop, Plaintiff was booked into the Oakland County Jail on October 24, 2002 for violating his probation. Early the next morning, Plaintiff ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Perez v. Oakland County
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • October 18, 2006
    ...posed a risk of becoming depressed, of inability to control moods and of becoming ultimately suicidal. Perez v. Oakland County, 380 F.Supp.2d 830, 841 (E.D.Mich. 2005). Perez also presented expert testimony stating that individuals who suffer from schizophrenia and have made past suicide at......
  • Wilson v. Bouchard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • September 26, 2022
    ... ... Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard (Sheriff Bouchard) ... alleging that he was denied ... County. This is insufficient to establish liability under ... § 1983. See Perez v. Oakland Cnty. , 380 ... F.Supp.2d 830, 848 (E.D. Mich. 2005), aff'd , 466 ... F.3d ... ...
  • Shimmel v. Moody
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • February 4, 2020
    ...suicidal thoughts or plans, but that, to the contrary, Plaintiff appeared upbeat and looking to the future." Perez v. Oakland Cty., 380 F. Supp. 2d 830, 845 (E.D. Mich. 2005) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 466 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006); see also Linden v. Washten......
  • Troutman v. Louisville Metro Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • March 3, 2020
    ...conclusions from a "presumably competent authority"— the medical staff—that a prisoner is not a suicide risk. Perez v. Oakland Cty., 380 F. Supp. 2d 830, 848-49 (E.D. Mich. 2005), aff'd, 466 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2006); see Linden, 167 F. App'x at 422 (finding that since the decedent "was remo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT