Buffington v. Baltimore County, Md.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1990 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 88-1161,89-1021,89-1054 and 89-1055,89-1040,s. 88-1161 |
| Citation | 913 F.2d 113 |
| Parties | Barbara BUFFINGTON, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of James E. Buffington, deceased; David M. Buffington, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, a body corporate and politic; Cornelius J. Behan, Individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police; Donald Gaigalas, Individually and in his official capacity; Ronald L. Tucker, Individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellants, and Daniel Yuska, Individually and in his official capacity; Joseph Gribbin, Individually and in his official capacity; L.S. Harvey, Individually and in his official capacity; Kenneth W. Kramer, Individually and in his official capacity; William L. Maeser, Individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. In re John A. AUSTIN; James G. Beach, III, Appellants. Barbara BUFFINGTON, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of James E. Buffington, deceased; David M. Buffington, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND, a body corporate and politic; Cornelius J. Behan, Individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police; Daniel Yuska, Individually and in his official capacity; Joseph Gribbin, Individually and in his official capacity; L.S. Harvey, Individually and in his official capacity; Donald Gaigalas, Individually and in his official capacity; Kenneth W. Kramer, Individually and in his official capacity; Ronald L. Tucker, Individually and in his official capacity; William L. Maeser, Individually and in his official capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Carter G. Phillips, Sidley & Austin, Washington, D.C.; Robert Belknap Green, Irwin, Kerr, Green, McDonald & Dexter, Baltimore, Md., argued (Mark D. Hobson, Kevin L. Kimball, Sidley & Austin, Washington, D.C., Charles M. Kerr, Irwin, Kerr, Green, McDonald & Dexter, Baltimore, Md., Arnold Jablon, County Atty., Michael J. Moran, Asst. County Atty., Thomas K. Farley, Asst. County Atty., Baltimore County Office of Law, Towson, Md., on brief), for appellants.
William Francis Gately, Daniel Warren Whitney, Sr., Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., argued (Janet M. Truhe, Semes, Bowen & Semmes, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before PHILLIPS and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Baltimore County, Baltimore County Chief of Police Cornelius Behan, and Baltimore County Police Officers Donald Gaigalas and Ronald Tucker appeal the district court's judgment for David and Barbara Buffington in the Buffingtons' action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and state law, asserting the defendants' liability for failing to prevent the Buffingtons' son's suicide while he was being held in a county jail. The appellants also challenge separate orders of the district court awarding attorneys' fees to the Buffingtons and imposing civil contempt sanctions on their trial counsel. We affirm the judgments against Tucker and Gaigalas, reverse the judgments against Behan and Baltimore County, vacate and remand the award of attorneys' fees and expenses, and vacate and remand the contempt sanctions.
At about 4:30 a.m. on March 19, 1987, David Buffington, Jr., was awakened by the sound of his father's car pulling out of the driveway of his parents' house, next door to his. Knowing that his younger brother, James Buffington, 24, was the only person home that night, and that James did not have a valid driver's license, David rushed next door and discovered a handwritten suicide note and guns missing from his father's gun closet, which had been forced open. David immediately called the police emergency line, then set off in search of his brother. Officer Lewis Harvey of the Wilkens precinct of the Baltimore County Police Department, responding to a broadcast over the police radio describing James as suicidal, went to David's house and met David's wife, Kathryn, who showed him the suicide note. Kathryn described James' history of emotional problems and drug and alcohol abuse, particularly as a teenager. These problems had led to a number of encounters with the Wilkens precinct police, and in fact Officer Harvey acknowledged to Kathryn that he knew of James' background. Acting Shift Lieutenant Joseph Gribbin soon arrived at the house and also read the note. Officer Harvey called the Wilkens station and advised that James was suicidal and armed.
The county police apprehended James at 5:47 a.m. When he was seized, James appeared to be intoxicated and had in his possession two rifles and three handguns, all loaded. At 6:25 a.m., Officer Harvey called Kathryn Buffington and informed her that James had been found and was being held at the Wilkens station in protective custody. He told her that James had said that he had not committed suicide "because he couldn't decide which gun to use." J.A. at 1112. David Buffington returned from his search minutes later and called Officer Harvey to confirm that James was being held and to remind him of James' history of emotional problems. David stressed his sense that James was at extreme risk of committing suicide. Officer Harvey stated that preparations were currently being made to take James to Greater Baltimore Medical Center for an emergency psychiatric evaluation. On Officer Harvey's advice, David decided to press criminal charges against his brother in order to enable the police to hold James in custody in the event that the hospital would not take him on an emergency commitment basis. At the time he spoke to David, Officer Harvey had already prepared the paperwork for arrest and charging.
From the time he was first brought into the station, Buffington was handcuffed to a rail beside the booking desk in the receiving room of the police station so he could be observed by the desk officers. Several police officers testified at trial that it was standard practice to handcuff suicidal detainees to the rail by the booking desk rather than place them in the lockup, where they might be able, quietly and unnoticed, to hang themselves. See, e.g., J.A. at 1160-63 (testimony of Officer Harvey). At approximately 6:15 a.m. that morning, Officers Donald Gaigalas and Ronald Tucker had taken over as desk officers, relieving Officers William Maeser and Patrick Kamberger from that post. Officer Gaigalas, at about 6:25 a.m., unhitched Buffington from the rail and took him to an isolation cell, without removing any of his clothing. Although there were numerous detainees in the male lockup, Gaigalas placed Buffington alone in the female lockup area, and made no provision to keep him under observation. At 7:15 a.m., Buffington was found, hanged from the cell's horizontal bars by a noose fashioned from his pants.
David and Barbara Buffington, as James' parents, and Barbara as James' personal representative, then brought this action alleging claims of constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, and pendent state claims under the wrongful death and survival statutes. Named as defendants were Baltimore County, Chief of Police Cornelius Behan, Sergeant Daniel Yuska, Corporal Joseph Gribbin, Captain Kenneth Kramer, and Officers Lewis Harvey, Donald Gaigalas, Ronald Tucker, and William Maeser.
There was conflicting evidence at trial about Buffington's emotional state while handcuffed to the rail and about how much the desk officers knew concerning Buffington's intention to commit suicide. Outgoing desk officer Kamberger testified that Buffington told him that he wanted to shoot himself, and Kamberger further stated that he passed this information on to Officer Tucker when Tucker and Gaigalas took over at the desk. J.A. at 1357-60. Tucker denied that Kamberger told him this. J.A. at 1391. Officer Gaigalas admitted that he knew Officer Harvey was preparing forms for Buffington's emergency commitment. J.A. at 1412. Though he later equivocated on the point, Gaigalas admitted in original testimony that he knew Buffington was suicidal before he took him to the cell. J.A. at 1407-08. Gaigalas also admitted that a prior deposition statement that he did not know that Buffington was suicidal and was being held for emergency psychiatric treatment had been "deliberately and knowingly false." J.A. at 1406.
At trial, the Buffingtons presented expert testimony about the County's deficiencies in suicide prevention at correctional facilities. Since 1977, there had been 57 suicide attempts in the County jails, twelve of which had been "successful." Although the County had adopted in 1984 one of the nationally recognized suicide prevention standards, known as "CALEA" (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies), it did not have any written policies or regulations implementing the standards. As noted, however, the department's officers did operate under a "standing order" that suicidal detainees should remain handcuffed to the rail by the front desk. The evidence at trial also showed that County police officers received no training in identifying suicidal detainees and in preventing suicide attempts. J.A. at 1627. Dr. Joseph Rowan, one of the Buffingtons' experts on jail and lockup suicide prevention, testified that "I strongly feel that this is the worst case of handling of a suicide case that I have ever seen." J.A. at 1662-63.
After a first trial ended in mistrial, a second jury found Officers Tucker and Gaigalas liable under Sec. 1983 for deliberate indifference to Buffington's serious need for some measure of suicide prevention. The County, through its policymaker Chief Behan, and Behan himself were found liable under Sec. 1983 on the theory that their failure to train county police officers in suicide prevention evidenced a deliberate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogan v. Cherokee Cnty.
...Defendant Palmer in her individual capacity, and the Court declines to address that issue sua sponte. See Buffington v. Baltimore Cty., 913 F.2d 113, 120-22 (4th Cir. 1990) (declining to address qualified immunity sua sponte on appeal).10 Defendant Palmer has not moved for summary judgment ......
-
Robinson v. Miller
...Canton "provides the standard for . . . liability" for municipalities based on "inadequacy of police training"); Buffington v. Balt. Cty., Md., 913 F.2d 113, 122 (4th Cir. 1990) ("In Canton, the Supreme Court outlined the circumstances under which a municipality can be held liable under § 1......
-
Stevens v. Cabarrus Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...be a "direct causal link" between "a specific deficiency in training and the particular violation alleged." Buffington v. Balt. Cnty., Md., 913 F.2d 113, 122 (4th Cir. 1990). Ultimately, "a municipality's culpability for a deprivation of rights is at its most tenuous where a claim turns on ......
-
Fuller v. Carilion Clinic
...immunity should be ‘raised ... distinct from the question of whether a constitutional violation occurred.’ Buffington v. Baltimore Cty., Md., 913 F.2d 113, 122 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 906, 111 S.Ct. 1106, 113 L.Ed.2d 216 (1991). Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has been strict in ......
-
Current § 1983 Issues in Maryland and the Fourth Circuit
...but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.'"71 In Buffington v. Baltimore County, 913 F.2d 113 (4th Cir. 1990), the court analyzed whether individual police officers could be liable under § 1983 for depriving Buffington of his liberty int......
-
4.12 Contempt
...an inherent contempt authority . . . as a power 'necessary to the exercise of all others'").[362] Buffington v. Baltimore Cnty., Md., 913 F.2d 113, 133 (4th Cir. 1990); Ri Ra Holdings LLC v. Ri Ra, No. 1:99CV0374, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18880, at *15, 2002 WL 1009730 (M.D.N.C. 2002).[363] Hi......
-
C. Attorney Fees and Costs
...176 F. Supp. 2d at 533.[41] Id.[42] Alexander S. v. Boyd, 929 F. Supp. 925, 936 (D.S.C. 1995).[43] Buffington v. Baltimore County, 913 F. 2d 113, 130 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 906 (1991).[44] Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Employee Res. Mgmt., 176 F. Supp. 2d 510, 535 (citing Lucas ......