Cook ex rel. Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe County

Decision Date10 March 2005
Docket NumberNo. 03-14784.,03-14784.
Citation402 F.3d 1092
PartiesLouise COOK, as personal representative of the ESTATE OF Daniel F. TESSIER, and Jonathan Tessier, a minor, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHERIFF OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, Rick Roth, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Robert Ader, Elizabeth B. Hitt, Law Offices of Robert Ader, PA, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Bruce Wallace Jolly, Purdy, Jolly & Giuffreda, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK*, District Judge.

MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

This sad case arises out of the 1999 suicide death of Daniel Tessier ("Tessier"), who, at the time of his death, was incarcerated at the Monroe County Detention Center ("MCDC"). Louise Cook, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel F. Tessier ("Cook"), brought this action against the Sheriff of Monroe County, Rick Roth, in his official capacity, on behalf of Tessier's estate and Jonathan Tessier, the minor child of Cook and Tessier. Cook alleges three bases for liability: first, she claims that the Sheriff was deliberately indifferent to Tessier's medical needs, in violation of federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; second, she says that the Sheriff is liable under Florida tort law for negligent supervision, training, and management of MCDC employees; finally, she asserts that the Sheriff is vicariously liable under Florida tort law for the negligent failure of MCDC employees to prevent Tessier's suicide.

Cook's case was tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,1 and Cook now appeals from the district court's entry of judgment as a matter of law for the Sheriff on all counts at the close of Cook's case. Cook also appeals the trial court's in limine rulings excluding evidence of other suicides occurring in the MCDC, as well as the testimony of a suicide expert retained by Cook.

After careful review of the record, we affirm the trial court's judgment for the Sheriff on Cook's § 1983 and negligent training and supervision claims, but we conclude that the trial court erred in granting judgment as a matter of law on Cook's vicarious liability negligence claim. We further hold that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding evidence of other MCDC suicides and the testimony of Cook's expert. We therefore affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

The essential facts are these. Daniel Tessier was arrested for auto theft on May 18, 1999, and was subsequently processed and placed into the general population ("Unit G") of the MCDC. The following morning, May 19, 1999, at 10:30 a.m., Tessier made a written request to see a psychiatrist, stating: "NeeD To se PHSYCAATRISe and docToR." Deputy Kenneth Kerr, the detention deputy assigned to Unit G that morning, testified at trial that he received and logged Tessier's request which was then placed into a box designated for medical requests. Pursuant to MCDC procedures, nurses are supposed to pick up all medical requests during their twice-daily rounds and pass them on to facility doctors. The date stamp on Tessier's request, however, reads "May 20, 1999," indicating that MCDC's medical department (known as "Medical") did not receive the request until the day after Tessier submitted it.

Deputy Kerr further testified that, when he observed Tessier on May 19, Tessier seemed nervous and appeared to be having an anxiety attack. Tessier approached Kerr later in the day complaining of chest pains, which prompted Deputy Kerr to send Tessier to Medical. Deputy Kerr did not inform Medical of Tessier's apparent anxiety or his request to see a psychiatrist.

A nurse examined Tessier at 2:45 p.m. on May 19. Tessier complained of difficulty breathing, pain in the left side of his chest cavity, and numbness in his right hand. The nurse performed an electrocardiogram, the results of which were "borderline." The nurse then placed Tessier on sick call, noting in his chart that the "inmate state[d] he fe[lt] better — placed on Dr. call for re-eval." Tessier was returned to Unit G, but continued to complain of chest pains. Deputy Kerr instructed Tessier to lie down and told him that if "he wasn't feeling good in a little while [Deputy Kerr] would send him back again."

At approximately 4:00 that afternoon, May 19, Deputy Kerr received instructions to transfer Tessier to Unit A, the MCDC's disciplinary unit, and was informed that Tessier's phone privileges had been revoked for allegedly making harassing phone calls to witnesses. Deputy Kerr transferred Tessier into the custody of Deputy Robert Malopolski, telling him to "keep an eye on Tessier because he had been complaining of chest pains."

Tessier was placed alone in a cell in Unit A. Deputy Malopolski observed Tessier to be nervous and anxious, and instructed him to take deep breaths and relax, and to push the intercom on the wall if he needed assistance. Deputy Malopolski thereafter responded to several intercom calls by Tessier. On one occasion, at approximately 5:00 p.m. on May 19, Deputy Malopolski found Tessier bent over on his knees on the floor of his cell, apparently having trouble breathing. Deputy Malopolski then contacted Medical, which came and took custody of Tessier.

Tessier stayed in Medical overnight, and Dr. Carol Daniels2 treated him the following day, May 20, 1999, at 11:45 a.m. Dr. Daniels diagnosed Tessier with pleuritis, a benign condition, and ordered that Tessier be given a chest x-ray and Motrin. Tessier was discharged back to Unit A around 5:00 p.m. the same day. Deputy Malopolski observed that Tessier still appeared very nervous on his return.

Deputy John Whortenbury took over the night shift in Unit A at 6:00 p.m. on May 20. He was not advised that Tessier had visited Medical or that he had requested to see a psychiatrist, although he was told that Tessier had lost his phone privileges. Deputy Whortenbury observed Tessier to be "quiet, mostly polite, nervous or concerned — maybe apprehensive about being in Unit A. He had a moderate energy level, and his mannerisms and conversation gave me the impression that he was ok."

Later that evening, at 9:20 p.m., Tessier made a second written request to see a psychiatrist, this time stating: "Need To See PHSYCATRIST AT SOON AS POSSIBLE. MeNTALY SICK, PROBLEM To BreaD." Deputy Whortenbury testified that he asked Tessier if the request was "something that needs to be done now or can [it be] handled on the next scheduled basis," and Tessier told him "the next scheduled time would be fine." Deputy Whortenbury then signed Tessier's request form and placed it in the pick-up box designated for medical requests.

At 9:35 the following morning, May 21, 1999, a deputy discovered Tessier in his cell, having hanged himself from a bedsheet. The last hourly check on Tessier occurred at 9:07 a.m., indicating that he had hanged himself sometime between 9:07 and 9:35. Attempts to fully revive Tessier failed, and he died two days later in the hospital when his family decided to discontinue life support.

Cook's case against the Sheriff proceeded to trial before a jury on August 6, 2003. Cook's witnesses included, in addition to herself and Jonathan Tessier, Deputies Kerr, Malopolski, and Whortenbury; Dr. Daniels; Dr. Tanju Mishara, Ph.D., a psychologist who treated MCDC inmates; Captain Rick Remley, the commander of detention services, who was in charge of MCDC operations at the time of Tessier's suicide; Major Tommy Taylor, the head of the Monroe County Bureau of Corrections, which encompassed three detention facilities; and Sergeant Fernando Lopez, who was the MCDC shift sergeant at the time of Tessier's suicide and the MCDC training sergeant at the time of trial. At no point during trial did Cook seek to introduce the testimony of her suicide expert, Dr. Maris.

The three deputies and Dr. Daniels testified primarily about their interactions with Tessier in the days and hours leading up to his suicide, as described above. Dr. Mishara commented on Tessier's requests to see a psychiatrist, explaining that the second request, in particular, would have caused her concern as a psychologist. On cross-examination, she clarified that the May 20 request was not "an emergency situation," and would not have been "interpret[ed] as someone who is going to be committing suicide unless there is a history or is a mental illness or depression or something like that." Instead, the inmate "would be someone that would be on [the MCDC psychologists'] list the next time that we are there." Dr. Mishara did say, however, that "[i]f a person came to me having written this [second request], I would certainly screen them for suicide." In addition, Dr. Mishara described the MCDC's procedures for processing and responding to inmate requests for psychiatric or psychological help, as well as her involvement in training deputies in suicide prevention.

Captain Remley, Major Taylor, and Sergeant Lopez further elaborated on MCDC procedures for training deputies in suicide prevention and for addressing inmate medical requests. As to the former, MCDC deputies are trained in suicide prevention, among other things, at the start of their employment, and are required thereafter to attend an annual retraining class that includes viewing a suicide prevention video.

The MCDC also maintains a written manual, the Sheriff's Policy and Procedure Manual (the "Manual"), which Cook introduced into evidence, and which includes a section on suicide prevention. The Manual contains a general statement of the MCDC's suicide prevention policy:

It is the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
712 cases
  • Havana Docks Corp. v. Carnival Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • March 21, 2022
    ...court enjoys ‘considerable leeway’ in making" evidentiary determinations such as these. Cook ex rel. Est. of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe County, Fla. , 402 F.3d 1092, 1103 (11th Cir. 2005) (quoting Frazier , 387 F.3d at 1258 ).C. Review of Report and Recommendation Standard"In order to cha......
  • MDS(Canada), Inc. v. Rad Source Techs., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • September 30, 2011
    ...10, 113 S.Ct. 2786). “The proponent of the expert testimony carries a substantial burden under Rule 702.” Cook v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Florida, 402 F.3d 1092, 1107 (11th Cir.2005) (emphasis added). The court must consider the testimony with the understanding that “the burden of establis......
  • Watson v. Edelen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • January 5, 2015
    ...health care, and a right to be protected from self-inflicted injuries, including suicide. Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1115 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting Belcher v. City of Foley, Ala., 30 F.3d 1390, 1396 (11th Cir.1994) ). To establish liabilit......
  • Alexander v. City of Muscle Shoals
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • January 26, 2011
    ...the standards under the Fourteenth Amendment are identical to those under the Eighth. Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe County, Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1115 (11th Cir.2005).Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir.2007) (parallel citations omitted, bracketed alter......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Georgia's Codification of Daubert: Narrowing the Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence in Georgia?
    • United States
    • Georgia State University College of Law Georgia State Law Reviews No. 23-2, December 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...these are distinct concepts that courts and litigants must take care not to conflate."). 130. See Cook v. Sheriff of Monroe County, Fl., 402 F.3d 1092, 1113 (11th Cir. 2005). 131. See Allison, 184 F.3d at 1310-11 (discussing how judges have hired outside experts, including commissioned pane......
  • Appellate Practice and Procedure
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 57-4, June 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...39. Id. at 1315. 40. Id. at 1316. 41. Id. at 1316 n.5. 42. 410 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2005). 43. Id. at 1302. 44. Id. at 1304-05. 45. 402 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2005). 46. Id. at 1100. 47. Id. at 1109. 48. Id. at 1110 n.6. 49. Id. 50. See Young v. New Process Steel, L.P., 419 F.3d 1201, 1203 (1......
  • Evidence - Marc T. Treadwell
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 57-4, June 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...2001)). 51. Id. at 1323. 52. Id. See, e.g., United States v. Roche, 415 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2005). 53. Chau, 426 F.3d at 1324. 54. 402 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2005). 55. Id. at 1109. 56. Fed. R. Evid. 103. 57. See Marc T. Treadwell, Evidence, 52 Mercer L. Rev. 1403-04 (2001). 58. Fed. R. E......
  • MENSTRUAL EQUITY, ORGANIZING AND THE STRUGGLE FOR HUMAN DIGNITY AND GENDER EQUALITY IN PRISON.
    • United States
    • Columbia Journal of Gender and Law Vol. 41 No. 1, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (detainees) and the Eighth Amendment (convicted prisoners)); Cook v. Sheriff of Monroe County, 402 F.3d 1092, 1115 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that in regard to providing pretrial detainees with basic necessities, the minimum standard allowed by the due ......
  • 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