Haslar v. Megerman, 96-1810

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
• Writing for the Court: Before McMILLIAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD; MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD
• Citation: Haslar v. Megerman, 104 F.3d 178 (8th Cir. 1997)
• Decision Date: 06 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-1810,96-1810
• Parties: Robert HASLAR, Appellant, v. Charles MEGERMAN, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Jackson County, Missouri, Department of Corrections; and Jackson County, Missouri, Appellees.

Page 178

104 F.3d 178

Robert HASLAR, Appellant, v. Charles MEGERMAN, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Jackson County, Missouri, Department of Corrections; and Jackson County Missouri, Appellees.

No. 96-1810.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 22, 1996.

Decided Jan. 6, 1997.

Michael Shipley, argued, Liberty, MO, for appellant.

Catherine Dorothy, argued, Kansas City, MO, for appellees.

Before McMILLIAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and BOGUE, ¹ District Judge.

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Robert Haslar challenged the Jackson County Detention Center's policy of shackling pre-trial detainees while they receive medical attention, and the district court ² granted summary judgment to the defendants. We affirm.

I.

Because this appeal follows a grant of summary judgment to the defendants, we state the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. While awaiting trial for burglary and theft in the Jackson County Detention Center ("JCDC"), Robert Haslar was admitted to Truman Medical Center ("TMC") for renal failure. During the first few days of Haslar's stay, he was virtually comatose. Pursuant to JCDC policy, an officer guarded Haslar at all times, and his legs were shackled and chained to his bed. As was customary, TMC nurses wrapped Haslar's legs with gauze to reduce chafing and abrasions. At the beginning of each eight-hour shift, JCDC officers were required by county policy to inspect Haslar's shackles to make sure that they were not too tight.

Haslar's medical problems caused his legs to become extremely swollen, and at one point the shackles themselves were barely visible. When Haslar complained on several occasions that his feet hurt and that the shackles were too tight, the guards neither checked the restraints nor called a nurse to examine Haslar. Haslar's mother also complained several times that his shackles were too tight; after one request that the guards either loosen or remove the shackles, the guards answered that they had done the best they could and that they could remove the restraints only if Haslar died. Haslar could not walk when he left TMC to return to JCDC, and he suffers permanent leg damage. As a result, Haslar must continue treatment for his pain.

By not consulting a doctor about Haslar's complaints, the guards' responses to the complaints departed from JCDC's standard practice. If an inmate complains about the shackles, it is customary for the guard either to check the tightness of the restraints personally or to call a nurse to examine them. If the shackles are too tight, the guard may loosen them without permission from a jail supervisor. If a medical doctor determines that removal of the shackles is medically necessary, as might well have been the case here had a doctor been consulted, the guard requests permission from the shift administrator at the jail to remove the shackles and restrain the inmate in another manner. Although final authority rests with the shift administrator, such requests are routinely granted.

Haslar brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jackson County and the director of its Department of Corrections, in his official capacity, alleging that the shackling policy constituted a deliberate indifference to medical needs and a punishment in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy did not reflect a deliberate indifference to detainees' medical needs, and that the policy served a legitimate penological goal and therefore was not a punishment. This appeal followed.

II.

Our analysis begins with the recognition that liability under § 1983 attaches to governmental entities and governmental officials acting in their official capacity for only those constitutional deprivations that result from the execution of official policy or custom. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1977). Regardless of possible wrongdoing by Haslar's guards, the defendants will therefore be liable for his injuries only if JCDC's policy of shackling pre-trial detainees while they receive medical attention constitutes either deliberate indifference to medical needs, Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-05, 97 S.Ct. 285, 291-92, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976),...