Hyatt v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 18 November 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15-10708,15-10708
• Citation: 843 F.3d 172
• Parties: Randi Hyatt, individually, as the next friend of her minor child C.W.H., and as the representative of the Estate of Jason Hyatt ; Lea Wilkins, as the representative of her minor child C.H.; Alexis Hyatt; Vickie Dear, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. Brianna Thomas; Charles Turner; Mark Admire; Brandy Cauble, Defendants–Appellees
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

843 F.3d 172

Randi Hyatt, individually, as the next friend of her minor child C.W.H., and as the representative of the Estate of Jason Hyatt ; Lea Wilkins, as the representative of her minor child C.H.; Alexis Hyatt; Vickie Dear, Plaintiffs–Appellants

v.Brianna Thomas; Charles Turner; Mark Admire; Brandy Cauble, Defendants–Appellees

No. 15-10708

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 18, 2016

Jeff S. Edwards, Scott Charles Medlock, Edwards Law, Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.

Charles Clark Self, III, Esq., Whitten, Hacker, Hagin, Anderson, Allen & Self, P.C., Abilene, TX, for Defendants–Appellees.

John R. Eldridge, Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., Houston, TX, for Texas Civil Rights Project, Amicus Curiae.

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

JAMES L. DENNIS, Circuit Judge:

The family of Jason Hyatt appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Brianna Thomas on their § 1983 claim related to Hyatt's suicide while in police custody. Because we find that Thomas responded reasonably to Hyatt's known suicide risk, we hold that she was not deliberately indifferent and thus was entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

I

On December 10, 2012, appellant Randi Hyatt, Jason Hyatt's wife, received a call from Hyatt's coworkers, who informed her that Hyatt had left work unexpectedly and that they were concerned about his wellbeing. Randi called 911 and informed Thomas, a Callahan County, Texas jailer and dispatcher, that her husband "was suicidal, had tried to commit suicide before, and that [she] would not be calling the police if [she] did not think something really bad was happening." Thomas dispatched officers to perform a welfare check, and Hyatt was soon located and placed under arrest under suspicion of driving while intoxicated. When Thomas called Randi to inform her that Hyatt had been stopped and to give her his location, Randi again stated that her husband was suicidal. Randi arrived while her husband was being arrested and informed the arresting officers that Hyatt "had tried to commit suicide before and needed to be watched."

Hyatt was taken to the Callahan County jail, where Thomas, who was trained in the assessment of suicide risk and screening for mental health issues of inmates, booked him and completed a "Screening Form for Suicide and Medical and Mental Impairments." In response to Thomas's questions, Hyatt stated that he had been prescribed antidepressants but was not taking them correctly, that he was feeling "very depressed," and that he attempted suicide two months earlier because he was off his medication; however, Hyatt answered "No" when asked if he was "thinking about killing [himself] today." Thomas observed that he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and noted "1/2 bottle of vodka, Xanax" in the "Comments" section of the form. Despite his answers to the questionnaire, Thomas observed that Hyatt "came across as very happy and generally in a good mood," and later stated in an affidavit that "[a]t no time did [she] consider him to be a suicide risk and at no time did he exhibit any actions which would have made [her] consider him to be a suicide risk." Nevertheless, "due to his history of depression and suicide attempts," Thomas refused to issue Hyatt the thin sheet or hygiene items typically given to prisoners when she processed him into the jail. On two prior occasions, inmates at Callahan County jail had used the thin sheets to hang themselves from bars in their jail cells.

Hyatt was issued a standard jail uniform and placed in a cell under video surveillance. However, a blind spot in surveillance-camera coverage prevented officers from seeing the toilet area of the cell. When Thomas's shift ended at 9:00 pm, she informed her shift relief, Jailer Charles Turner, about Hyatt's intoxication and history of suicide attempts and advised him "of the need to keep an eye out for suspicious behavior." Turner checked on Hyatt throughout the night. Before his shift ended at 7:00 am, Turner made Hyatt breakfast and delivered it to him. He later recalled that Hyatt "seemed normal and [was] acting in a regular manner," and that Hyatt "gave no indication of suicidal tendencies." Turner was relieved by Mark Admire around 7:00 am; he told Admire that Hyatt had been booked for DUI and that his family would be in soon to "bond him out of jail." Shortly after his shift began, Admire was advised by another jailer that Hyatt could not be seen from the video monitor. Although the jailer suspected that Hyatt was using the bathroom, she dispatched Admire to check on him. At approximately 8:02 am, Admire discovered that Hyatt had hanged himself in the cell bathroom with a plastic garbage bag. EMS was contacted; personnel arrived at the jail at 8:12 am and determined that Hyatt was dead.

In 2014, Hyatt's widow, mother, and children (collectively, the Hyatts) filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act against Callahan County; Callahan County Sheriff John Windham; and five Callahan County Jailers, including Thomas. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia , that the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Hyatt's right to protection from harm guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that they were each entitled to qualified immunity. The defendants contended that they did not fail to protect Hyatt from a known risk of suicide but rather "took steps to protect him from same," and argued that they did not intentionally disregard Hyatt's suicidal tendencies.

The district court ultimately denied summary judgment as to Sheriff Windham but granted summary judgment as to the remaining individual defendants. With respect to Thomas, the district court found:

Plaintiffs have failed to direct the Court to specific facts that could be interpreted by a reasonable jury as showing that Defendant Thomas in fact drew the inference that Mr. Hyatt was an imminent or high risk for suicide (requiring an even higher level of care and observation than that which was being given him) or that Defendant Thomas deliberately ignored such a high level of risk.

The district court therefore concluded that no genuine issue of material fact precluded Thomas from being entitled to qualified immunity. This appeal followed.

II

A. Standard of Review

We review the district court's summary judgment decision de novo and apply the same standard that was used by the district court.

Roberts v. City of Shreveport , 397 F.3d 287, 291 (5th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record discloses "no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a). "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is genuine if the summary judgment "evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the [non-movant]." Id.

"Qualified immunity protects officers from suit unless their conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right." Mace v. City of Palestine , 333 F.3d 621, 623 (5th Cir. 2003). Once a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, "[t]he plaintiff bears the burden of negating qualified immunity." Brown v. Callahan , 623 F.3d 249, 253 (5th Cir. 2010). "A plaintiff seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show: ‘(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.’ " Cass v. City of Abilene , 814 F.3d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd , 563 U.S. 731, 735, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) ). Despite this burden-shifting, all reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non-movant plaintiff's favor. Brown , 623 F.3d at 253.

B. Deliberate Indifference

The Supreme Court has held that "deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the ‘unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." Estelle v. Gamble , 429 U.S. 97, 104, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia , 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.)). Although pretrial detainees like Hyatt are not protected by the Eighth Amendment, we have held that "the State owes the same duty under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment to provide both pretrial detainees and convicted inmates with basic human needs, including medical care and protection from harm, during their confinement." Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss. , 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996) (Hare II ).

In Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994), the Supreme Court explained that to be deliberately indifferent to an inmate's needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment, "the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference." Therefore, to avoid liability, "[p]rison officials charged with deliberate indifference might show ... that they did not know of the underlying facts indicating a sufficiently substantial danger and that they were therefore unaware of a danger, or that they knew the underlying facts but believed (albeit unsoundly) that the risk to which the facts gave rise was insubstantial or nonexistent." Id. at 844, 114 S.Ct. 1970.

Furthermore, evidence that an official was aware of a substantial risk to inmate safety does not alone establish deliberate indifference. As the Supreme Court explained in Farmer , "prison officials who actually knew of a substantial risk to inmate health or safety may be...