Rich v. City of Mayfield Heights

• Decision Date: 04 February 1992
• Docket Number: No. 90-4051,90-4051
• Citation: 955 F.2d 1092
• Parties: Linda M. RICH, Guardian of Daniel Walczak, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF MAYFIELD HEIGHTS; Police Chief Dominic Caprara; Police Officer John Doe; Police Sergeant John Doe; Patrolman John Doe I; Patrolman John Doe II; Corrections Officer John Doe, Defendants-Appellants, Paramedic John Doe; All Whose Names are Unknown and Whose Addresses are 6154 Mayfield Road, Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124; Unnamed Uniformed and Plain Clothes Mayfield Heights Police Officers and/or Paramedics Whose True Names and Addresses are Unknown, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 1092

955 F.2d 1092

Linda M. RICH, Guardian of Daniel Walczak, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF MAYFIELD HEIGHTS; Police Chief Dominic Caprara Police Officer John Doe; Police Sergeant John Doe Patrolman John Doe I; Patrolman John Doe II; Corrections Officer John Doe, Defendants-Appellants Paramedic John Doe; All Whose Names are Unknown and Whose Addresses are 6154 Mayfield Road, Mayfield Heights, Ohio 44124; Unnamed Uniformed and Plain Clothes Mayfield Heights Police Officers and/or Paramedics Whose True Names and Addresses are Unknown, Defendants.

No. 90-4051.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Argued Sept. 9, 1991.

Decided Feb. 4, 1992.

Steven H. Steinglass (argued), Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland, Ohio, Patrick D. Quinn (briefed), Quinn, Gonakis & McMahon, Euclid, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee.

Todd M. Raskin, Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, Solon, Ohio, John T. McLandrich (argued and briefed), Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants-appellants.

Before RYAN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and DUGGAN, District Judge. ^*

DUGGAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the defendant police officers and paramedics failed to properly screen Daniel Walczak for suicidal tendencies prior to incarcerating him at the Mayfield Heights City Jail, and for failing to provide him with proper emergency medical care in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. Plaintiff also sued the City of Mayfield Heights, Ohio ("the City"), and the City's Police Chief, Dominic Caprara ("Caprara"), for negligent training and hiring. All defendants sought summary judgment. Defendant police officers' summary judgment motion was based on the defense of qualified immunity. The district court granted partial summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's claim against the paramedics because there was no evidence they acted improperly. The court also dismissed, on the basis of qualified immunity, plaintiff's claim that the police officers failed to screen for suicidal tendencies. Plaintiff's claim against Caprara and the City for negligent training and hiring in connection with screening for suicidal tendencies was also dismissed "[b]ecause of the [officers'] qualified immunity and because the right to be screened for suicidal tendencies did not constitute a constitutional right at the time of this incident." The district court, however, denied the police officers' summary judgment motion based upon qualified immunity as to plaintiff's claim that they failed to provide proper emergency medical treatment (i.e., deliberate indifference to medical needs), and denied the summary judgment motion brought by Caprara and City as to plaintiff's claim of improper hiring and training relative to the claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs.

Defendant police officers then brought this interlocutory appeal. Caprara and the City joined in the appeal. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the defendant police officers were entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference to medical needs. We therefore reverse that portion of the district court's order denying the individual police officers' summary judgment motion. We dismiss the appeals filed by Caprara and the City because we lack jurisdiction to hear their claims.

I.

On April 24, 1987, Daniel Walczak was arrested on a grand theft larceny charge by officers of the Mayfield Heights Police Department. Walczak was taken to the Mayfield Heights City Jail and placed in a cell while he waited for bond to be set. Detective Roger Murray, one of the arresting officers, submitted an affidavit in which he stated that upon learning that bond had been set for Walczak, he went to Walczak's cell to inform him of the amount of the bond and to allow him to make a telephone call. He stated in his affidavit:

Upon arriving at Mr. Walczak's jail cell, I found him hanging by his neck from his socks which he had lodged in the hinge of his jail cell door. I informed the shift commander and requested the dispatcher to contact the Mayfield Heights Fire Department Rescue Squad for medical assistance. The Mayfield Heights Fire Department Rescue Squad was on the scene within minutes administering emergency aid to Mr. Walczak. Mr. Walczak was subsequently taken to the Hillcrest Hospital for further emergency treatment and hospitalization.

At his deposition Murray testified that when he went into the jail, he opened the outer door to the cellblock, entered the cellblock, looked through a window in the inner cellblock door and "saw Daniel hanging." Thereupon, he "immediately made the decision to run out and get help." He estimated that "a minute" elapsed between the time he discovered Walczak hanging, and the time he got back into the cell with the paramedics and two other officers.

Harvey Yelsky, the Communications Officer on duty stated in deposition testimony that he observed Murray come down to the cellblock area, go through the security doors and "a minute or so, maybe less, he came out," indicated a prisoner was hanging, and said "get help." Yelsky stated he immediately called the paramedics. A call for medical assistance from the city jail was recorded in the fire department's log at 4:24 p.m. The paramedics arrived at 4:25 p.m. and were led into the cellblock by three officers, where Walczak was still hanging. As one of the paramedics attempted to cut Walczak down, the socks apparently gave way, and Walczak slumped to the floor. Walczak was not breathing at the time, nor was his heart beating. The paramedics immediately began to administer medical aid and were able to revive Walczak, who was then transported to a hospital. Walczak suffered permanent loss of mental and physical faculties caused by lack of oxygen, and is presently institutionalized.

II.

Plaintiff has moved to dismiss this appeal on jurisdictional grounds. Ordinarily, denials of motions for summary judgment are not appealable. However, denials of summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity are immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2817, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). Because the defendant police officers' summary judgment motion was denied based on qualified immunity, their interlocutory appeal is properly before this Court.

The City and Caprara also seek to invoke this Court's jurisdiction on issues other than qualified immunity relying on Carlson v. Conklin, 813 F.2d 769, 770-71 (6th Cir.1987), and Foster v. Walsh, 864 F.2d 416, 418 (6th Cir.1988). In Carlson and Foster, each court exercised appellate jurisdiction beyond the qualified immunity issue. However, in Huron Valley Hosp., Inc. v. City of Pontiac, 792 F.2d 563 (6th Cir.), cert. denied sub. nom. Walker v. Huron Valley Hosp., Inc., 479 U.S. 885, 107 S.Ct. 278, 93 L.Ed.2d 254 (1986), the court concluded it was not required to review other issues raised on appeal "simply because we review the qualified immunity issue." Id. at 568; see also Birrell v. Brown, 867 F.2d 956, 956 n. 1 (6th Cir.1989). For the reasons articulated by the Supreme Court in Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 662-63, 97 S.Ct. 2034, 2042, 52 L.Ed.2d 651 (1977), and consistent with the Huron Valley decision, we conclude that only the qualified immunity issue raised by defendant police officers is properly before this Court. We therefore decline to hear the appeal of the City and Caprara.

III.

Qualified or "good faith" immunity is an affirmative defense that is available to government officials performing discretionary functions. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2736, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982); Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). "[W]hether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the 'objective legal reasonableness' of the action.... assessed in light of the legal rules that were 'clearly established' at the time it was taken." Anderson, 483 U.S. at 639, 107 S.Ct. at 3038 (citing Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19, 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39); Yates v. City of Cleveland, 941 F.2d 444, 446 (6th Cir.1991). "A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is 'clearly established' at the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all." Siegert v. Gilley, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1793, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, a district court will consider the allegations put forth by the plaintiff, and "[u]nless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." Mitchell, 472 U.S. at 526, 105 S.Ct. at 2815. The United States Supreme Court has elaborated on what is meant by "clearly established,"

[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, ... but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.

Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 (citations omitted).

The ultimate burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. Wegener v. Covington, 933 F.2d 390, 392 (6th Cir.1991). Defendants bear the initial burden of coming forward with facts to suggest that they were acting within the scope of their discretionary authority during the incident in question. Id. Thereafter, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to establish that the defendants' conduct violated a right so...