Jessup v. Miami-Dade County

Decision Date18 March 2010
Docket NumberCase No. 08-21571-CIV.
Citation697 F. Supp.2d 1312
PartiesAmanda JESSUP, Plaintiff, v. MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida

John de Leon, Chavez & de Leon, South Miami, FL, Alan Judah Greenstein, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.

Marlon Delano Moffett, Miami, FL, Lourdes Espino Wydler, Oscar Edmund Marrero, Oscar E. Marrero, Coral Gables, FL, Jeffrey Lawrence Hochman, Hudson Carter Gill, Johnson Anselmo Murdoch Burke Piper & Hochman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING CORPORAL ROBINSON'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PATRICIA A. SEITZ, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Miami-Dade County's Motion For Summary Judgment DE-122 and Corporal Robinson's Motion For Summary Judgment DE-123. Plaintiff Amanda Jessup ("Jessup") asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Corporal Katrina Robinson ("Robinson") and Miami-Dade County ("Miami-Dade") as well as a claim for negligence against Miami-Dade. The action concerns a tragic outcome of the series of events occurring over March 31, 2004 and April 1, 2004 in which Jessup was arrested during an investigation of a mistaken report of theft and suffered a head injury during a psychotic episode while she was detained in the Miami-Dade Women's Detention Center. Robinson and Miami-Dade now move for summary judgment on Jessup's claims that Robinson was deliberately indifferent to her medical needs, that Miami-Dade was deliberately indifferent to her medical needs to failing to properly train its officers to respond to the needs of mentally ill detainees and that Miami-Dade was negligent in failing to provide Jessup with access to medical care. Taking the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented no admissible evidence showing that Robinson was deliberately indifferent to her medical needs. Furthermore, Miami-Dade's Motion For Summary Judgment will be granted as Plaintiff has not provided evidence that Miami-Dade was deliberately indifferent to her medical needs or that Miami-Dade improperly denied Jessup access to medical care.

1. Background Facts
a. Arrest and Placement in Women's Detention Center

The following facts are undisputed, unless otherwise noted. In the early morning of March 31, 2004, City of South Miami police officers arrested Jessup for resisting a police officer with violence and resisting a police officer without violence. (DE-125-1, Offense Incident Report No. 04-2800).1 At 9:07 a.m. that morning, Jessup was booked for these offenses at Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center ("TGK"). (DE-125-2, Inmate Booking Information).

Later that morning, Jessup had an intake psychosocial assessment at TGK's Corrections Health Services Mental Health Unit. (See DE-125-4, Initial Psychosocial Assessment). The licensed clinical social worker who conducted the assessment, Daniel Wagner ("Wagner"), found that Jessup had stripped naked in her holding cell. (Id. at page 2). During the assessment, Jessup was not responsive to questions and was talking to herself. (Id.). Wagner also noted that Jessup appeared to be hallucinating. (Id.). This behavior led Wagner to order that Jessup "be placed (stripped) on suicide precaution" at the Women's Detention Center ("WDC") and that she see a psychiatrist. (Id. at page 3; DE-125-5, Medical Addendum Form). At 12:45 p.m., Jessup was transported from TGK to the 3rd Floor of the WDC and she was placed in a cell later that afternoon. (DE-125-8, 15 Minute/Hourly Confinement Physical Sight Checks; DE-125-13, Cell History).

The Third Floor of the WDC has three (3) wings: A-Wing, B-Wing and C-Wing. (DE-127-1, Declaration of Katrina Robinson ("Robinson Dec") ¶ 8). At the time, C-Wing housed detainees that medical staff had diagnosed with psychological problems. (Id.). C-Wing had 2 units: 3-C1 and 3-C2. Between the two units was a supervisor's desk that had a vantage point into each unit. (Id.). Additionally, a desk was inside each unit, occupied by the officer assigned to that unit. (Id.). Each unit consisted of five cells that opened up into a communal day room. (Id.).

On April 1, 2004, inmates on suicide precaution were being housed in Unit 3-C1. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 9). Those inmates were continuously monitored by an officer whose desk was located inside the day-room. (Id.). The officer assigned to suicidal inmates also documented the inmates' status every fifteen minutes on a form entitled, "15 Minute/Hourly Confinement Physical Sight Checks". (Id.). Inmates on suicide precaution were also observed hourly by medical staff. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 10).

Jessup was placed in Unit 3-C1, Cell # C1-371, which is the first cell on the left-hand side of the unit. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 12). Looking into the cell, the bed was on the left, a toilet was on the wall opposite the door and on the right-hand was a narrow ledge that was located about 2-3 feet off the floor. (Id.). The ledge was about six inches wide and ran for approximately six feet along the wall. (5/5/09 Jessup Dep. at 141:5-18).

b. April 1, 2004

On April 1, 2004, Jessup was out to court from approximately 8:00 a.m. until about 1:00 p.m. (DE-125-10, Nursing Evaluation Hourly Observation Form at page 3). At 1:00 p.m., during an observation by a nurse, Jessup was alert, but not responding to verbal questioning and was walking around in her cell naked. (Progress Record at page 1). Her menstrual period started that afternoon, but she refused the nurse's request to clean her up. (Id. at pages 1-2).

Corporal Katrina Robinson was the Third Floor Supervisor at the WDC between 3:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. that day. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 5). Robinson's responsibilities included supervising four correctional officers on that floor and relieving them when they went on break. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 6). During that same shift, Officer Regina Williams ("Williams") was assigned to monitor Unit 3-C1.2 Williams' desk was located directly in front of and facing Jessup's cell, about 2 to 3 feet away. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 13). As was her usual practice, Robinson checked the status of inmates in Unit C1 throughout her shift. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 14).

At about 3:00 p.m., Robinson noticed Jessup standing on the ledge on the right-hand wall of her cell. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 15). Jessup then got on and off the ledge a number of times between 3:00 p.m. until about 3:45 p.m. without injury. (DE-15, 4/1/04 15 Minute/Hourly Confinement Physical Sight Checks; 5/5/09 Jessup Dep. at 143:2-17). Jessup testified that she was standing on the ledge to pray. (5/5/09 Jessup Dep. at 142:11-12). Robinson and Williams talked to her to get her to come down and Williams was ultimately successful in coaxing Jessup off the ledge permanently. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 15).

At other times in her shift, Robinson saw Jessup standing and praying in her cell. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 16) At one point, she also saw Jessup take toilet water in her hands and splash it on her herself. (Id.). Robinson asserts that at times Jessup was silent, but at other times she asked Robinson questions such as "Why am I here?" or "Can I make a phone call?" (Robinson Dec. ¶ 17).

At about 5:00 p.m., Officer Williams observed Jessup smearing her menstrual blood on the window of her cell. (4/1/04 15 Minute/Hourly Confinement Physical Sight Checks). According to Jessup, she put her blood on the window in the form of a cross and did not spell out any messages. (5/5/09 Jessup Dep. at 140:6-141:1).

At about 6:45 p.m., Robinson relieved Officer Williams for her break and began keeping the notations on Jessup's 15 Minute Site Checks. From about 6:45 p.m. until about 7:30 p.m., Robinson observed Jessup awake in her cell. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 19). Up until 7:30 p.m., no person had reported to Robinson that Jessup had previously threatened or tried to hurt herself. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 20). Robinson avers that, as of this time, none of the behaviors she observed indicated that there was an imminent risk or strong likelihood that Jessup would harm herself. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 17).

At around 7:30 p.m., just as Officer Williams was returning from her break, Jessup suddenly ran toward the wall of her cell and hit her head against it. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 21). At that moment, Robinson was at the officer's desk inside Unit 3C-1. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 22). Robinson told Officer Williams to report a medical emergency and immediately attempted to open the door of Jessup's cell with her key. (Id.). While Robinson had never had a problem with the key to Jessup's cell in the past, she could not get the door to Jessup's cell open. (Robinson Dec. ¶ ¶ 24-25). Robinson also repeatedly told Jessup to stop hitting her head, but Jessup did not listen to Robinson's requests and continued to hit her head against the wall. (Robinson Dec. ¶ ¶ 22-23). No later than five minutes after Jessup began hurting herself, Robinson was able to open Jessup's cell door using a different set of keys. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 27).

Robinson and the officers responding to the emergency call then entered Jessup's cell restrained her. (Robinson Dec. ¶ ¶ 28-29). Jessup was then immediately taken to a medical clinic in a wheelchair. (Robinson Dec. ¶ 32). WDC staff called the City of Miami Fire Rescue at 7:36 p.m. (DE-125-23, Incident Report of Lidia Leon). Fire Rescue staff observed that Jessup had a hematoma from hitting her head and a deformed nose. (DE-125-25, City of Miami Fire Rescue Report). At 7:45 p.m., Fire Rescue staff departed from WDC to take Jessup to Cedars Emergency Medical Center. (Incident Report of Lidia Leon). While the record does indicate what treatment Cedars Emergency Medical Center provided to Jessup, Defendants assert without objection from Plaintiff that Jessup was discharged from Cedars Hospital on April 15, 2004.

c. Miami-Dade Officers' Training

At the time of the incident, Miami-Dade had in place two separate policies to provide for the safety of suicidal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Doe v. City of Miami Gardens
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 9 Abril 2019
    ...public records exception to hearsay, the interview statements themselves are not factual findings); accord Jessup v. Miami-Dade Cty. , 697 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2010) ("While ‘factual findings’ in internal affairs reports are generally admissible under an exception to the hearsa......
  • Shehada v. Tavss
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 27 Marzo 2013
    ...in those reports are [ ] double hearsay that cannot be admitted at trial or considered on summary judgment.” Jessup v. Miami–Dade Cnty., 697 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1322 (S.D.Fla.2010) (citing Roxbury–Smellie v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 324 Fed.Appx. 783, 785 (11th Cir.2009); United Tech. Corp. v. Maze......
  • Pellegrino v. Wengert, Case No. 15-cv-60535-BLOOM/Valle
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 11 Julio 2016
    ...that cannot be admitted at trial or considered on summary judgment." Shehada, 965 F. Supp. 2d at 1374 (quoting Jessup v. Miami-Dade Cty., 697 F.Supp.2d 1312, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2010)). The Court is, therefore, wary to consider the summaries of interviews and witness statements contained within......
  • Rivera v. Palm Beach Cnty.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida
    • 15 Marzo 2021
    ...trial even by having the author of the report testify. Thus, it cannot be considered on summary judgment. Jessup v. Miami-Dade Cnty, et al., 697 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1322 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (J. Seitz) (citing Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322-25 (11th Cir. 1999)).3 4. Arbitration Report and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Legal documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part II. Documentary evidence
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...the purchaser of the motor home. Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Ass’n ., 255 Cal. Rptr. 453 (1989). Jessup v. Miami-Dade County , 697 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D.Fla., 2010). In an action by a detainee against county jail officials, summary judgment affidavits submitted by the detainee contai......
  • Legal Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2015 Part II - Documentary Evidence
    • 31 Julio 2015
    ...the purchaser of the motor home. Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Ass’n ., 255 Cal. Rptr. 453 (1989). Jessup v. Miami-Dade County , 697 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D.Fla., 2010). In an action by a detainee against county jail officials, summary judgment affidavits submitted by the detainee contai......
  • Legal Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2017 Documentary evidence
    • 31 Julio 2017
    ...the purchaser of the motor home. Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Ass’n ., 255 Cal. Rptr. 453 (1989). Jessup v. Miami-Dade County , 697 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D.Fla., 2010). In an action by a detainee against county jail officials, summary judgment affidavits submitted by the detainee contai......
  • Legal Documents
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2016 Part II - Documentary Evidence
    • 2 Agosto 2016
    ...the purchaser of the motor home. Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Ass’n ., 255 Cal. Rptr. 453 (1989). Jessup v. Miami-Dade County , 697 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D.Fla., 2010). In an action by a detainee against county jail officials, summary judgment affidavits submitted by the detainee contai......
  • 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