Bozeman v. Orum

Decision Date31 August 2005
Docket NumberNo. 04-11073.,No. 04-11722.,04-11073.,04-11722.
Citation422 F.3d 1265
PartiesWillie H. BOZEMAN, as legal representative of the Estate of Mario Haggard, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Silas ORUM, III, James Thrift, Correctional officer, Darryl N. Wood, Jeffrey Sanderson, Clarence Wilson, Defendants-Appellants, Larry Haverland, et al., Defendants. Willie H. Bozeman, as legal representative of the estate of Mario Haggard, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Silas Orum, III, James Thrift, Darryl N. Wood, Jeffrey Sanderson, Clarence Wilson, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Larry Haverland, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Tyrone Carlton Means, Thomas, Means, Gillis & Seay, P.C., Constance C. Walker, Thomas T. Gallion, III, Haskell, Slaughter, Young & Gallion, L.L.C., Tamica Clemons Richard, Monet McCorvey Gaines, Thomas, Means, Gillis & Seay, P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Orum, Thrift, Wood, Sanderson and Wilson.

Joseph C. Guillot, McPhillips, Shinabaum, LLP, Griffin Sikes, Jr., Atty. at Law, Montgomery, AL, for Bozeman.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and DUBINA and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Mario Haggard was killed as a result of a struggle with correctional officers while a pretrial detainee at the Montgomery County Detention Facility ("MCDF") in Alabama. Through Haggard's guardian, Plaintiff Willie Bozeman, Haggard's estate brought this civil suit for money damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The suit made claims against the correctional officers and alleged excessive force and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Plaintiff also brought claims against MCDF supervisors and nurses. The district court denied qualified immunity to the Officers but granted summary judgment in favor of the supervisors and nurses. We affirm the district court's decisions.

Standard of Review

On this interlocutory appeal we review de novo the district court's denial of summary judgment to the Officers. In doing so, we do not make credibility determinations or choose between conflicting testimony, but instead accept Plaintiff's version of the facts drawing all justifiable inferences in Plaintiff's favor.1 See Evans v Stephens, 407 F.3d 1272, 1277-78 (11th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Background

For today's decision, we assume these facts.

Mario Haggard was a seventeen-year-old pretrial detainee held at MCDF. Haggard was transferred to MCDF in August 1999, following a successful escape attempt from the Mt. Meigs Youth Facility. A juvenile court had found "no reasonable grounds to believe [Haggard was] committable to an institution or agency for the mentally . . . ill" and found that Haggard "[could] not be properly disciplined under juvenile law."

Upon arrival at MCDF, Haggard was housed in cell block 4E, which was reserved for escape risks and other high-risk inmates. Between 4:15 and 4:45 a.m. on 11 October 1999, Officer Wilson called from the control booth to the MCDF booking area to report that, in 4E on the top tier, a problem existed with an inmate: Haggard. Officer Orum and Sergeant Gipson went to investigate and observed that Haggard had flooded his cell with toilet water, that urine and feces were on the floor, and that water was running from the top tier over the balcony to the first floor of the facility. Haggard was naked, pacing his cell, yelling religious phrases,2 and drinking the water from the toilet and spitting the water toward the Officers. Sergeant Gipson (a female guard) returned to the booking area to allow Sergeant Thrift (a male guard) to come to Haggard's cell to assist Officer Orum.

Sergeant Thrift and Officer Orum tried to calm Haggard by talking to him. Haggard was unresponsive and continued his behavior. Officers ordered the water supply in Haggard's cell to be cut off and directed trustees to begin cleaning up the water that had run out of Haggard's cell.

Haggard continued drinking the toilet water, vomited several times and, at some point, tied a string around his neck in an obviously futile attempt to hang himself. By about 5:45 a.m., Officers Wood and Sanderson arrived at the cell. Some inmates testified that the Officers told Haggard that, if they had to come in the cell, they would "kick his ass" and Haggard would be "in for a rude awakening."

In what seems to have been an effort to relocate Haggard to a holding cell, four Officers — Thrift, Orum, Sanderson and Wood — entered Haggard's cell.3 The Officers attempted to subdue Haggard on his bunk so that they could handcuff him. When they put their hands on Haggard, the Officers had trouble holding onto him because Haggard was wet and had also applied grease to his body to make himself slippery.4 Haggard evaded all four Officers for some time, slipping to the floor, rolling from his stomach to his back, kicking, and positioning himself under the bed while holding onto one of the bed's legs.5 The Officers were also slipping and falling around the cell on the wet floor.

Several inmates testified that the cell block got quiet, after the Officers entered the cell, allowing the inmates to hear sounds of the scuffle. Various inmates testified that they heard punching and slapping, what sounded like someone being slammed to the bed, and an officer say to Haggard, "Is that all you've got?" Inmates also testified they heard choking sounds and what they thought was someone "gagging for air," followed by silence on Haggard's part.

Inmate Joe Lee Falls was a trustee who had been assigned to clean up the water outside Haggard's cell and could see inside the cell during part of the event. Falls testified that Haggard was mad and continued to struggle with the officers, even after he had been shackled. Falls said "[Haggard] wasn't giving up after they had him bound down," and "[Haggard] was handcuffed, and he was still trying — you know, he was still trying to get up."

Falls also testified that, during the struggle, the Officers had Haggard face-down on the bed, were applying weight to him, and that Officer Sanderson, at one time, was pushing down on Haggard's head. According to Falls, at some point in the struggle, the Officers asked Haggard if he had "had enough" and if he was "going to quit." Haggard replied, "Yeah, I give . . . I've had enough," to which the Officers responded "Oh, we don't think you've had enough." Falls observed that the officers continued to "lay on" Haggard. Falls said he then heard a "sound like . . . the wind went out [of Haggard]."

The time from when the Officers entered Haggard's cell until the time they left the cell carrying Haggard was about twenty minutes. Once Haggard was shackled, all five Officers participated in carrying Haggard out of his cell. The Officers had draped a blanket over Haggard because he was naked. Inmates testified that some of the Officers looked panicked; and one inmate heard Officer Orum repeatedly say, "damn, damn, damn."

Accounts among Plaintiff's witnesses vary about whether the Officers shackled Haggard while inside his cell or outside his cell on the catwalk and about whether the Officers carried Haggard in a face-down or face-up position.6 All Plaintiff's witnesses, however, consistently testified that, from the time Haggard was carried from his cell, Haggard appeared to be lifeless. Inmates testified that Haggard made no movements or sounds while being carried and that his body hung and flopped in an uncontrolled manner. One inmate testified that, when the Officers set Haggard down in front of the inmate's cell for about a minute while trying to open a locked door, Haggard never moved and that Haggard's ankles were blue and swollen.

The Officers carried Haggard from his cell in 4E on the second level to take him to an isolation cell in a corridor located in 4 North, which was on the first level. While 4E had a set of stairs, the Officers elected to carry Haggard through a door connecting 4E and 4F to use the stairway in 4F. The 4F stairway was wider, less steep, and dry.7 Plaintiff contends, and the videotape confirms, that it took about fourteen minutes for the Officers to transport Haggard from his cell to the 4 North corridor.

Once in 4 North, the Officers again set Haggard on the ground to wait for the isolation cell to be prepared; the Officers testified that, at this time, they noticed that Haggard appeared unconscious. The Officers then summoned Nurse Rainey who arrived on the scene about two minutes later and began life-saving techniques. Nurse Rainey later testified that, when she arrived, Haggard felt cold to the touch. Paramedics arrived shortly thereafter and transported Haggard to the hospital where resuscitation efforts ceased at 7:28 a.m.

An autopsy report rendered by Dr. James Lauridson concluded that asphyxia was the cause of death. Dr. Lauridson opined that Haggard's ability to breathe was constrained at some point during or throughout the struggle. According to the report, he saw no physical evidence of Haggard having received blows to the head, being struck or beaten with an object, or pressure having been applied to Haggard's back. Lauridson's later grand jury testimony, however, indicated that the abrasions on the inside upper and lower lips of Haggard were consistent with his head having been face-down on the bed at some time during the struggle thus impairing Haggard's ability to breathe.

Plaintiff brought constitutional claims against the five Officers for excessive force and for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. The district court denied summary judgment to the Officers. Plaintiff also brought deliberate indifference claims against Nurses Boddie and McElroy,8 and brought supervisory liability claims against Jail Supervisors Larry Haverland, Gina Savage, Wanda Robinson, and Sheriff D.T. Marshall. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants on the claims against the Sheriff, nurses, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
391 cases
  • Grimage v. Hilliard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • December 5, 2016
    ...Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1033 (2d Cir. 1973) (establishing the standard for an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim); seeBozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir. 2005) (applying the Whitley test in a Fourteenth Amendment excessive force case). If force is used "maliciously and sadisti......
  • Bosh v. Cherokee Cnty. Bldg. Auth., Case Number: 111037
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • February 12, 2013
    ...imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 31. Title 51 O.S. Supp. 2012 §155, see note 8, supra. 32. See, Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir. 2005) (The applicable standards for federal claims of excessive force apply the same, whether the victim was a pretrial detain......
  • Keele v. Glynn Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia
    • March 29, 2013
    ...must show three (3) things. First, she must show that the detainee had a serious medical need. Id. (citing Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1272 (11th Cir.2005) (per curiam)). This is an objective inquiry. Id. Second, she must show that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to the......
  • Andrew v. St. Tammany Parish Prison
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • January 14, 2016
    ......Johnson No. 260 , 367 F. App'x 196, 198 (2d Cir. 2010), and Bozeman v. Orum , 422 F.3d 1265, 1271 (11th Cir. 2005), 7 all of which had used a subjective standard like the one used by the Fifth Circuit in Valencia ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Correctional Case Law: 2004-2005
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review No. 31-2, June 2006
    • June 1, 2006
    ...Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977)Bourdon v. Loughren, 386 F.3d 88(2nd Cir. 11-18-04)Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 8-31-05)Branham, L. S. (2004). “Go sin no more”: The constitutionality of governmentally funded faith-based prison University of ......

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