Comstock v. McCrary
| Decision Date | 25 April 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-2448,99-2448 |
| Citation | 273 F.3d 693 |
| Parties | (6th Cir. 2001) Carolyn Comstock, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norris McCrary; V. S. Thyagarajan; and David Howell, Defendants-Appellants. Argued: |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit., No. 97-74806--Anna Diggs Taylor, District Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Brian T. Dailey (briefed), Todd J. Stearn(argued), BRIAN DAILEY LAW FIRM, Farmington Hills, Michigan, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
John L. Thurber (briefed), OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CORRECTIONS DIVISION, Lansing, Michigan, Michael C. McDaniel, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TORT DEFENSE DIVISION, Lansing, Michigan, for Defendants-Appellants.
Before: MARTIN, Chief Judge; MOORE, Circuit Judge; O'MALLEY, District Judge.*
Billy Wade Montgomery committed suicide on March 3, 1995 at the Reception and Guidance Center ("RGC") of the State Prison of Southern Michigan. Plaintiff-appellee Carolyn Comstock, the personal representative of Montgomery's estate, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants-appellants Norris McCrary, a psychologist, V.S. Thyagarajan, a medical doctor, and David Howell, a physician's assistant, all of whom were employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging, inter alia, that defendants displayed deliberate indifference to Montgomery's serious medical needs, thereby denying him his rights under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. The plaintiff and the defendants cross-moved for summary judgment. The district court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, concluding that the defendants were not protected from suit by qualified immunity. The defendants appeal the district court's denial of their motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's judgment as to defendant McCrary, but REVERSE as to defendants Howell and Thyagarajan.
On February 22, 1995, Montgomery was transferred from the St. Joseph County Jail in Centerville, Michigan, where he had been housed since June 28, 1994, to the RGC at the State Prison of Southern Michigan.1 Montgomery was completing a sentence for his third Operating Under the Influence of Liquor conviction. His earliest release date from prison was April 11, 1995. Upon his arrival at the RGC, Montgomery was placed in administrative segregation on the floor of a cell block known as "Top 6."
On March 2, 1995, Montgomery was referred for psychological evaluation by a resident officer who observed him acting despondently in his cell, and had heard that the previous shift's guard had removed sharp objects from Montgomery out of concern for his safety. Norris McCrary, a prison psychologist, was assigned to evaluate Montgomery. McCrary met with Montgomery in his cell at 10:55 a.m. that morning. McCrary's notes indicate that, in the course of their meeting, Montgomery reported feeling depressed and stated that "his nerves are shot and that he 'feels like he's going to die.'" Joint Appendix ("J.A.") at 61. McCrary then noted, Id. McCrary's notes also reveal that Montgomery "[s]tated that he wasn't being pressed or threatened by anyone." Id. At 11:30 a.m., McCrary placed Montgomery on close observational status, or "suicide watch." While on suicide watch, Montgomery was dressed in a suicide or "bam-bam" suit, restricted to finger foods, prohibited from having sharp objects, and checked on every ten minutes. McCrary also scheduled Montgomery to meet with the Outpatient Mental Health Team. J.A. at 24, 61, 107.
The next day, March 3, 1995, at 9:45 a.m., Howell conducted a previously scheduled physical examination of Montgomery. McCrary's notes from his interview with Montgomery the day before were not in the file. J.A. at 179 (Howell Dep.). Howell made a contemporaneous "progress report," which noted the following:
Patient seen in "BAM-BAM" suicide prevention garment . . . states that he is not depressed and has no thoughts of self-harm. States that his main problem is that other inmates have threatened to kill him because they believe he is a "snitch" -- stated he had thoughts of dying in order to get locked down in safe area. No psychotic signs/symptoms noted.
J.A. at 62. Howell's progress note was placed in Montgomery's medical file. Howell did not report to anyone that Montgomery had been labeled a snitch.2
Thyagarajan, who was Howell's supervisor, reviewed Howell's progress note as required by prison procedure, and signed off on the note sometime on March 3, 1995. J.A. at 62, 203. He never met with Montgomery or looked at his medical records.
At 10:13 a.m. that same morning, following Howell's visit, McCrary met with Montgomery for slightly less than a half hour, during which time he reevaluated Montgomery's mental state. McCrary performed his evaluation by speaking with Montgomery. He stated that while the conversation did not last a long time, it "was enough time for me to ascertain from him, you know, was he feeling suicidal." J.A. at 84 (McCrary Dep.). McCrary then stated that he Id. Based on their conversation, McCrary concluded that,
[H]e wasn't suicidal. That's what he told me. He said he wasn't feeling suicidal. He had no thoughts of going to hurt himself. I did ask him some questions, mental status. And he said something that he knew he was going to go back up to Top Six.
And when he told me that he wasn't feeling suicidal, and based just on his affect and how he came across to me, I took him at his word that he wasn't feeling suicidal. So I took him off of close observational status.
Id. (emphasis added). According to McCrary, there was a change from Montgomery's demeanor the day before: Montgomery was "less anxious," and "he didn't seem to be as worried and uptight as" he had been. Id. Indeed, he was like "a lot of prisoners who've been in the same situation." Id. Therefore, he recommended that Montgomery be sent back to his cell in administrative segregation.
At approximately 4:29 p.m. that afternoon, Montgomery committed suicide in his cell on Top 6 by hanging himself with a sheet fashioned into a rope. He left a suicide note for his girlfriend which read: J.A. at 70 (Suicide Note).
Subsequent to her appointment as the representative of Montgomery's estate, Comstock commenced this litigation by bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against McCrary, Howell, and Thyagarjan, in their individual capacities. The complaint alleged that defendants violated Montgomery's Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by displaying deliberate indifference to his medical needs, and that, under state law, they were grossly negligent in his care. In an amended complaint, Comstock added an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect-from-harm claim against McCrary and Howell.
Comstock then moved for summary judgment with respect to defendant McCrary, alleging that there was no genuine issue of material fact that McCrary recklessly removed Montgomery from suicide watch "without conducting any investigation into the reasons and causes underlying Mr. Montgomery's suicidal ideation" and that this conduct proximately caused Montgomery's death. J.A. at 36. According to Comstock, McCrary's failure to perform a thorough psychological examination, which would have revealed that Montgomery had been labeled a "snitch" and that his suicidal urge was motivated by his fear of the other inmates, amounted to deliberate indifference to Montgomery's serious medical needs. As evidence of this deliberate indifference, McCrary simply took Montgomery at his word that he was feeling better and released him from suicide watch, instead of taking steps to confirm Montgomery's changed mental status, identify the source of Montgomery's fears, and take further action to protect Montgomery from himself.
In response, McCrary filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that he did not perceive that there was a substantial risk of harm to Montgomery on March 3, 1995 when he made the decision to release Montgomery from close observation. J.A. at 160. Moreover, McCrary argues, whether he could have performed a more in-depth evaluation of Montgomery is irrelevant because a dispute over a doctor's medical judgment does not amount to a violation of a patient's constitutional rights. He then asserted that, "[a]t the very least," he was entitled to qualified immunity. J.A. at 162. McCrary also sought summary judgment on the claims for failure to protect under the Eighth Amendment and gross negligence under state law.
Defendants Howell and Thyagarajan then moved for summary judgment, respectively, asserting that they failed to perceive that Montgomery posed a risk of harm to himself and that their lack of knowledge was not disputed. Each also invoked the shield of qualified immunity.
The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on her claims of deliberate indifference and gross negligence, as well as McCrary's cross-motion on those counts, finding that summary judgment was inappropriate because there were genuine issues of material fact in dispute. The district court also denied McCrary's motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, although it granted McCrary's motion for summary judgment on the failure to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richards v. Snyder, Case No. 1:14-cv-84
...violated when a prison official is deliberatelyindifferent to the serious medical needs of a prisoner. Id. at 104-05; Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. 2001). A claim for the deprivation of adequate medical care has an objective and a subjective component. Farmer v. Brennan, ......
-
Morales Feliciano v. Calderon Serra, No. CIV. 79-004(PG).
...Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers, 791 F.2d 1182 (5th Cir.1986), and appropriate treatment for suicidal patients, Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir.2001). d. "[I]nterfering with the treatment once prescribed." Estelle, 429 U.S at 105, 97 S.Ct. 285. Examples of this form of d......
-
Wicker v. Lawless
...medical needs are under an obligation to offer medical care to such a prisoner.") (emphasis in original) (citing Comstock v. McCrary , 273 F.3d 693, 702 (6th Cir. Mich. 2001) ); Danese v. Asman , 875 F.2d 1239, 1244 (6th Cir. 1989) ("If a prisoner asks for and needs medical care, it must be......
-
Zakora v. Chrisman
...lacks: a warning that the inmate was a suicide risk. Suicidal tendencies qualify as a "serious medical need[ ]." Comstock v. McCrary , 273 F.3d 693, 703 (6th Cir. 2001) (quotation omitted). The Eighth Amendment covers them because an inmate, isolated from society, "must rely on prison autho......
-
Recent Legal Developments
...jettisons reasonable suspicion rule for arrestee strip searches. Correctional Law Reporter, 20(4), 50-51, 54-55. Comstrock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001).Douglas v. Sigler, 386 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1967).Eisenberg, H. (1993). Rethinking prisoner civil rights cases and the provision ......
-
Mental problems (prisoner).
...Appeals Court SUICIDE FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001). The personal representative of a prisoner's estate brought a civil rights action against prison medical personnel after the prisoner committed suicide while confined. The district court denied s......
-
Medical care.
...New Jersey) HEARING IMPAIRED ADA- Americans with Disabilities Act U.S. Appeals Court SUICIDE DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE Comstock v. McCrary,. 273 F.3d 693 (6th Cir. 2001). The personal representative prisoner's estate brought a civil rights action against prison medical personnel after the pri......