Dadd v. Anoka Cnty.

• Decision Date: 30 June 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15-2482,15-2482
• Citation: 827 F.3d 749
• Parties: Patrick A. Dadd, Plaintiff–Appellee v. Anoka County; Deputy Nichole Kempenich; Deputies J. Does, 1–4, the identities of whom are presently unknown to the plaintiff; Nurse J. Doe, the identity of whom is presently unknown to the plaintiff, all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants–Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

827 F.3d 749

Patrick A. Dadd, Plaintiff–Appellee

v.Anoka County; Deputy Nichole Kempenich; Deputies J. Does, 1–4, the identities of whom are presently unknown to the plaintiff; Nurse J. Doe, the identity of whom is presently unknown to the plaintiff, all in their individual and official capacities, Defendants–Appellants.

No. 15-2482

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: February 10, 2016

Filed: June 30, 2016

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Andrew T. Jackola, of Anoka, MN. The following attorney also appeared on the appellant brief; Kelsey Kelley, of Anoka, MN.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee and appeared on the brief was Zorislav Romanovich Leyderman, of Minneapolis, MN.

Before SHEPHERD, BEAM, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Patrick A. Dadd sued Anoka County, several detention deputies, and a nurse (collectively Anoka)¹ under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of his right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment while he was in custody at the Anoka County Jail.² Anoka appeals the district court's³ denial of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Dadd's complaint on the basis of qualified immunity. Because we agree that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, we affirm.

I. Background

On March 28, 2014, Dadd underwent a dental surgery that involved cutting into his jaw bone and extracting a tooth. His oral surgeon prescribed Vicodin, a painkiller, to take on an as-needed basis during recovery. Dadd filled his prescription the day of his surgery, and began taking the pills as prescribed.

Dadd was arrested the next evening, March 29, 2014, at his home. Dadd advised the arresting officers that he was recovering from dental surgery and was on Vicodin, and the arresting officers agreed to bring Dadd's Vicodin with him to the jail. While Dadd had taken his Vicodin earlier in the day, he told the officers he had not taken it on the evening of his arrest. The arresting officers transported Dadd to the Anoka County Jail and transferred him into the custody of the Anoka County Sheriff's Office and Defendant Deputy Nichole Kempenich. Deputy Kempenich took Dadd's Vicodin prescription from the arresting officers and booked Dadd into the jail.

During the booking process, Dadd told Deputy Kempenich about his dental surgery the day before, that he was in severe pain as a result, and that he needed to take the prescribed medication she had been given by the arresting officers. Dadd alleged that Deputy Kempenich did not address his claims of pain or make any arrangements for him to take his medication or see a nurse. Also during the booking process, Deputy Kempenich filled out a medical questionnaire in which she wrote that Dadd did not have any dental problems, and she wrote “N/A” in response to whether he needed to be referred to a registered nurse.

Dadd also complained to three other deputies he noticed standing nearby during the booking process, telling them of his severe dental pain and his need to take his medication. Those deputies also ignored his concerns.

After completing the booking process, Dadd was taken to a cell for the night. Throughout the night, he suffered “severe and excruciating” pain and was unable to sleep. Because of the pain, Dadd rolled toilet paper into balls, soaked them in cold water, and applied them to the wound inside his mouth.

The next morning, March 30, 2014, Dadd was allowed to visit with a nurse at the jail. During the appointment, Dadd told the nurse he had undergone dental surgery on March 28 shortly before his arrest, was in severe pain, and was prescribed Vicodin to alleviate the pain. He also told her the prescription had been brought to the jail by the arresting officers. The nurse refused Dadd's request to take his medication or to take any type of prescription or over-the-counter pain medicine to help with his pain. Dadd informed the nurse that he could not sleep the night before because of the pain and that he had spent most of the night using toilet paper soaked in cold water to try to alleviate his pain. The nurse continued to refuse Dadd's request for help and the appointment ended without Dadd taking or receiving any medication.

Dadd alleges that due to the severe pain and lack of any medication, he could not chew anything for the remainder of the day and therefore did not eat. He continued to use rolled-up toilet paper soaked in cold water to deal with the pain. At one point, when another deputy noticed that Dadd was not eating, Dadd complained about his pain and inability to chew or eat because of it. Dadd explained his dental surgery, and told the deputy that he was in severe pain, that he was prescribed pain medicine, and that the medicine had been delivered to the jail. He asked the deputy to help him. The deputy did not respond.

At noon on March 30, 2014, the jail doctor directed the nurse to give Dadd Ibuprofen, a pain reliever, three times per day. The nurse did not respond to this directive and did not provide Dadd with Ibuprofen. Dadd did not receive any medication or treatment for his pain on March 30, 2014, and stated that “he spent most of the day crying and in complete agony.” He was once again unable to sleep the night of March 30, 2014, and again spent the night with wet toilet paper in his mouth.

The next morning, on March 31, 2014, Dadd was still unable to eat or chew. No one offered him help or treatment for his pain. After breakfast, Dadd was taken to court and later brought back to jail, where he spent the day in severe pain with no treatment or medication. He was released from the jail at approximately 5:30 pm that evening. Jail staff returned Dadd's Vicodin to him as he exited the jail. On his way out, Dadd complained to jail staff about the suffering he had undergone, and one of the deputies “responded that jail was not supposed to be ‘comfortable.’ ”

In his complaint, Dadd asserted three claims for relief, only one of which is at issue on appeal: Count 1 alleged that Deputy Kempenich, Deputies J. Does 1–4, and Nurse J. Doe 5 violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to substantive due process through their deliberate indifference towards his serious medical needs.⁴ Anoka moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss Count 1 for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, arguing that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

II. Discussion

Anoka asserts that the district court erred in denying its motion to dismiss Dadd's § 1983 claim on the ground of qualified immunity. “A denial of qualified immunity is an appealable ‘final decision’ only ‘to the extent it turns on an issue of law.’ ” Hager v. Ark. Dep't of Health , 735 F.3d 1009, 1012 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth , 472 U.S. 511, 530, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) ). “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and viewed most favorably to the plaintiff.” Id. at 1013 (citing Gross v. Weber , 186 F.3d 1089, 1090 (8th Cir. 1999) ). At this early stage of the litigation, to warrant reversal, “defendants must show that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the face of the complaint.” Bradford v. Huckabee , 394 F.3d 1012, 1015 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Hafley v. Lohman , 90 F.3d 264, 266 (8th Cir. 1996) ). “[We] review de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity,” and must consider “whether the plaintiff has stated a plausible claim for violation of a constitutional or statutory right and whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.” Hager , 735 F.3d at 1013.

Anoka alleges that Dadd failed to establish a plausible claim for a violation of a constitutional right, i.e., deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. To state a claim for deliberate indifference, Dadd must show that he was suffering from an objectively serious medical need, and that prison officials knew of the need but deliberately disregarded it. See Saylor v. Nebraska , 812 F.3d 637, 643–44 (8th Cir. 2016). A serious medical need is “one that is so obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” Vaughn v. Greene Cty., Ark. , 438 F.3d 845, 851 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Pool v. Sebastian Cty., Ark. , 418 F.3d 934, 944 (8th Cir. 2005) ). Anoka concedes that Dadd was suffering from a serious medical need. In dispute, however, is whether the Anoka defendants were deliberately indifferent to it.

As an initial matter, we agree that Deputy Kempenich, Deputies J. Does 1–4, and Nurse J. Doe 5 were aware of Dadd's serious medical needs. According to the complaint, Dadd explained his condition, severe pain, and need for medication to Deputy Kempenich at booking, to each deputy he described interaction with, and to the jail nurse. When she eventually spoke to a doctor, the nurse acknowledged Dadd's pain. After the doctor prescribed pain medication, however, the nurse failed to administer it to Dadd. Anoka argues that the nurse had only “constructive knowledge” of Dadd's need for the medicine, since he did not return to her after the medicine was prescribed. But Dadd had seen the nurse only hours before. Just as we may infer that an official knows of a substantial risk to a plaintiff's health when the risk is obvious, it reasonably may be inferred the nurse was aware Dadd was still in pain. See Coleman v. Rahija , 114 F.3d 778, 786 (8th Cir. 1997) (“The factual determination that a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk may be inferred from circumstantial evidence or from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” (citing Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994) )).

Nevertheless, Anoka asserts the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because Dadd has failed to show they...