Domino v. Texas Dept of Criminial Justice, 99-41486

• Decision Date: 07 February 2001
• Docket Number: No. 99-41486,99-41486
• Citation: 239 F.3d 752
• Parties: (5th Cir. 2001) ANNA DOMINO; ET AL., Plaintiffs, SHERENA DOMINO, As Administrator of the Estate of Antoine Domino, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ET AL., Defendants, SRINIVAS REDDY, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 752

239 F.3d 752 (5th Cir. 2001)

ANNA DOMINO; ET AL., Plaintiffs, SHERENA DOMINO, As Administrator of the Estate of Antoine Domino, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; ET AL., Defendants, SRINIVAS REDDY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-41486

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, Fifth Circuit

February 7, 2001

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas.

Before JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI¹, Judge.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

Anna Domino, et al. filed this § 1983 suit as administrator of the estate of Texas Department of Corrections prisoner Antoine Domino (Domino) against Dr. Srinivas Reddy (Reddy) and other TDC officials following Domino's suicide. Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Reddy, a prison psychiatrist, by failing to predict Domino's suicide, was deliberately indifferent to Domino's medical needs and thereby violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Dr. Reddy moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The magistrate judge denied Reddy's motion and Reddy filed this interlocutory appeal. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.

I.

Antoine Domino committed suicide by hanging himself with a bed sheet in his prison cell at the Coffield Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") on August 2, 1996. Reddy was a psychiatrist at the Coffield Unit at the time of Domino's suicide and had treated him on a number of occasions. On August 2, 1996, Domino asked to meet with a member of the Psychiatric Team at Coffield. Domino met with a prison psychologist, Gayle Haynes, who then referred Domino to Reddy for further evaluation. Reddy's evaluation of Domino lasted approximately five minutes.

During this meeting, Domino asked for sleeping pills and expressed apprehension about his upcoming transfer from administrative segregation to the general prison population. After Reddy denied his request for sleeping pills, Domino said, "I can be suicidal." Reddy did not believe that Domino was a suicide risk at that time, thinking instead that Domino's statement was an attempt to achieve "secondary gain," such as sedatives or a single cell. Domino then began banging his head on the table and Reddy had the guards take Domino back to his cell. Two and a half hours later, Domino committed suicide.

Domino had a long history of psychological problems. Even before being incarcerated, he was hospitalized for his psychological problems and also attempted suicide several times. Reddy did not start working at Coffield until January 1995. Domino was already an inmate at this time, but he was not sent to Reddy until March 1995, when Domino was found in his cell with a homemade noose. Reddy diagnosed Domino as suffering from recurrent major depression and started him on Prozac, an antidepressant medication. Reddy also placed Domino back on the active psychiatric caseload and ordered weekly visits with a therapist.

In March 1995, Domino was transferred to Skyview Psychiatric Hospital for six days after he made more suicide threats at Coffield. At Skyview, Domino was diagnosed as suffering from bipolar (manic-depressive) disorder, with depression in full remission. In Domino's discharge note, the Skyview physicians wrote that some of his behavior could be characterized as manipulative. When Domino returned to Coffield, Reddy examined him again and prescribed Lithium to treat the bipolar disorder.

Reddy saw Domino in April 1995 for a routine follow up appointment. Reddy continued Domino's Lithium medication. Reddy also kept Domino on Prozac because he continued to be depressed, and scheduled another follow up appointment for June 1995. At this meeting in June, Reddy continued Domino's Prozac and Lithium medications even though Domino refused to permit blood work that was necessary to monitor his Lithium medication. Domino continued to refuse to permit this blood work.

In August 1995, Reddy discontinued both of Domino's medications, stating that Domino was not compliant in taking his medications and refused to permit the necessary blood work. Domino did not attend his scheduled counseling sessions in September and October 1995. In December 1995, the entire Psychiatric Team at Coffield, including Reddy, decided to release him from the active caseload. Their report stated that Domino was no longer expressing psychotic symptoms and would be seen only upon request.

Domino was not examined again until June 1996, when he asked to see a psychiatrist. A member of the Psychiatric Team met with him, and wrote in Domino's file that "suicidal ideation was present but no plan [was] evident." Domino scheduled another meeting with a therapist in July 1996, which Domino failed to attend. Domino next met with a member of the Psychiatric Team on the day of his suicide, as described above.

The administrator of Domino's estate, Sherena Domino ("Ms. Domino"), sued Dr. Reddy and others under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. All parties consented to a trial by a magistrate judge. More particularly, Ms. Domino alleges that Reddy was deliberately indifferent to Domino's serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Ms. Domino claims Reddy should have recognized that Domino was suicidal and either transferred him to Skyview or taken other measures to prevent his suicide. Reddy moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, but the magistrate judge denied Reddy's motion. This interlocutory appeal followed.

II.

The parties first disagree about whether this court has jurisdiction over this appeal. This court has stated that:

[A] public official asserting a qualified immunity defense may not seek interlocutory appellate review of a district court's evidence sufficiency determination, [but] he or she may nevertheless argue on appeal [1] that the facts, even when viewed in the plaintiff's favor, demonstrate that the plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated . . . .

Vance v. Nunnery, 137 F.3d 270, 273 (5th Cir. 1998)(citing Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 116 S.Ct. 834 (1996). In the context of medical care, a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when he acts with deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 105-06, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291-92 (1976). Also, "a serious medical need may exist for psychological or psychiatric treatment, just as it may for physical ills." Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of the City of Houston, 791 F.2d 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986). Reddy argues that even when the disputed facts are viewed in Domino's favor, Reddy was not deliberately indifferent to Domino's serious medical needs and therefore did not violate Domino's constitutional rights. We agree with Reddy that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal to decide that legal issue when the disputed facts are viewed in Domino's favor.

III.

Reddy first raises several challenges to the admissibility of evidence used by the magistrate in deciding Reddy's summary judgment motion. We need not rule on these challenges, because we hold that even when this disputed evidence is admitted against Reddy, and the disputed facts are viewed in favor of Ms. Domino, that Reddy did not act with deliberate indifference to Domino's serious medical needs.

This court has stated that the test for qualified immunity "is quite familiar: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) if so, whether the defendant's conduct was objectively unreasonable in the light of the clearly established law at the time of the incident." Hare v. City of...