Mendiola-Martinez v. Arpaio, No. 14–15189

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: TALLMAN, Circuit Judge.
• Citation: 836 F.3d 1239
• Parties: Miriam Mendiola–Martinez, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff; Unknown Parties, named as: Jane Doe Officers 1–5, John Doe Officers 1–5, Jane Doe Doctors 1–5, John Doe Doctors 1–5, Jane Doe Nurses 1–5, and John Doe Nurses 1–5 (in their individual capacities); County of Maricopa, as named in amended complaint; Maricopa County Special Health Care District, named Maricopa County Special Health District on amended complaint, Defendants–Appellees.
• Decision Date: 12 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 14–15189

836 F.3d 1239

Miriam Mendiola–Martinez, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff; Unknown Parties, named as: Jane Doe Officers 1–5, John Doe Officers 1–5, Jane Doe Doctors 1–5, John Doe Doctors 1–5, Jane Doe Nurses 1–5, and John Doe Nurses 1–5 (in their individual capacities); County of Maricopa, as named in amended complaint; Maricopa County Special Health Care District, named Maricopa County Special Health District on amended complaint, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 14–15189

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2016 San Francisco, California
Filed September 12, 2016

Joy Bertrand (argued), Joy Bertrand Esq., L.L.C., Scottsdale, Arizona, for Plaintiff–Appellant.

Eileen Dennis GilBride (argued) and William R. Jones, Jr., Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant–Appellee Maricopa County Special Health Care District.

Michele M. Iafrate (argued), Iafrate & Associates, Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendants–Appellees Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff, and Maricopa County.

Before: Barry G. Silverman, Raymond C. Fisher, and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

TALLMAN, Circuit Judge.

We recently recognized that only rarely will prisoners' medical needs “genuinely clash” with the security concerns of prison personnel. Chess v. Dovey , 790 F.3d 961, 974 (9th Cir. 2015). That discord may be present when the prisoner is a woman in labor. Miriam Mendiola–Martinez was in the custody of Maricopa County for a nonviolent offense when she gave birth to her son. After her release, she filed suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1983, alleging that her constitutional rights were violated when, among other things, she was shackled and restrained during labor and postpartum recovery. Mendiola–Martinez brought her claims against Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio (collectively “the County Defendants”), the Maricopa County Special Health Care District (“the Medical Center”) where she had her baby,¹

836 F.3d 1243

and individual John and Jane Doe defendants. The district court granted summary judgment for the County Defendants and the Medical Center on all of Mendiola–Martinez's claims, and taxed costs against her. She now appeals the summary judgment orders and the cost awards, both of which we have jurisdiction to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We are presented with an important and complex issue of first impression in our circuit: whether the U.S. Constitution allows law enforcement officers to restrain a female inmate while she is pregnant, in labor, or during postpartum recovery. We hold today that in this case, the answer to that question depends on factual disputes a properly instructed jury must resolve. We therefore vacate and remand the district court's grant of summary judgment for the County Defendants on most of Mendiola–Martinez's shackling claims. We affirm summary judgment in favor of the County Defendants on the remaining claims. We also affirm summary judgment on all claims against the Medical Center. Regarding costs, we vacate the cost award to the County Defendants and remand, but affirm the cost award for the Medical Center.

I

When Mendiola–Martinez was arrested in Arizona for forgery and identity theft on October 19, 2009, she was 6-months pregnant. Because she could not prove she was a legal resident of the United States, she was detained under the Arizona Bailable Offenses Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13–3961(A)(5), before we later ruled it unconstitutional. See Lopez–Valenzuela v. Arpaio , 770 F.3d 772, 792 (9th Cir. 2014) (en banc), cert denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2046, 192 L.Ed.2d 177 (2015). On December 10, 2009, she pleaded guilty to solicitation to commit forgery. Less than two weeks later, while still in the custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (“MCSO”), Mendiola–Martinez gave birth to a healthy boy. Days later, she was sentenced to time-served and released.

Prior to her release, Mendiola–Martinez was detained at Maricopa County's Estrella Jail in Phoenix, Arizona. At the Estrella Jail, Mendiola–Martinez was given a “modified diet” specifically for pregnant women. This diet consisted of the regular inmate diet, a prenatal vitamin, and an additional 32 ounces of milk.² In the affidavit supporting her motion for summary judgment, Mendiola–Martinez stated that she was not given enough food while in custody and that the only water in her cell came from the sink next to the toilet in her cell. She asserted that due to those conditions, she was worried that her unborn baby would not survive. Mendiola–Martinez also contended that the MCSO failed to provide her water and food during the “extended periods of time” she was transported from the Estrella Jail to court.

On December 20, 2009, two weeks before her expected delivery date, Mendiola–Martinez began to have contractions.³ The medical staff at Estrella Jail determined that she was “not in early labor,” but ordered her transported to the Medical

836 F.3d 1244

Center for examination. During the ambulance ride to the hospital, Mendiola–Martinez's wrists were handcuffed in front of her. MCSO officers also shackled her ankles with plastic cuffs connected by a metal chain. After Mendiola–Martinez arrived at the Medical Center, an MCSO officer placed her in restraints while hospital staff utilized a fetal monitor to check on her baby. The Medical Center staff monitored her for two hours, discharged her, and ordered her transported back to Estrella Jail.

The next day, December 21, 2009, the medical staff at Estrella once again ordered her transported to the Medical Center “to rule out active labor.” Mendiola–Martinez and the County Defendants dispute whether she was shackled in the ambulance this second time. Mendiola–Martinez testified at her deposition that she was not restrained. But the MCSO deputy who rode with her in the ambulance, Stacey Hertig, testified that Mendiola–Martinez was placed on a gurney before she was lifted into the ambulance and that her hands were cuffed in front of her.

Although Officer Hertig first testified in her deposition that she did not recall whether the EMT in the ambulance asked her to remove the cuffs, she later testified that she removed them at the EMT's request. Officer Hertig also testified that Mendiola–Martinez was “crying and making a lot of noise and movement while we were in the ride.” Mendiola–Martinez “kept holding her belly” and appeared uncomfortable. According to Officer Hertig, Mendiola–Martinez “was in a lot of pain.” In her Incident Report completed about the transport to the hospital, Officer Hertig wrote that “Mendiola–Martinez was in active labor.”

After Mendiola–Martinez arrived at the Medical Center, Dr. Eve LaValley confirmed that she was in “active labor.” Around 5:00 p.m. that day, at the Medical Center, Mendiola–Martinez gave birth via cesarean section (“C–section”) to a healthy boy she named “Angel.” Officer Hertig was in the delivery room when the baby was born. Mendiola–Martinez was not shackled or restrained during the procedure.

After the C–section, Mendiola–Martinez was taken to a post-anesthesia care unit. In her recovery room, an armed MCSO officer placed a grey plastic cuff around Mendiola–Martinez's ankle that was connected to a metal chain. The other end of the chain was then attached to her hospital bed. The chain, which was six to eight feet long, allowed her to walk around her hospital room and to the bathroom. But when she walked, she had to drag the chain, which she alleges aggravated her C–section incision and caused her additional pain. An armed MCSO officer stayed with her in the recovery room.

On December 22, 2009, Mendiola–Martinez's friend came to the hospital to take Angel for the remainder of his mother's detention. While Angel was at the hospital, Mendiola–Martinez saw him “at least three times,” for 15–25 minutes at a time. She did not breast feed him during these visits because, according to Mendiola–Martinez, the nurses had already fed him. Mendiola–Martinez never requested a breast pump to expel her breast milk, and no one at the hospital or the jail clinic prescribed or gave her one.

The next day, December 23, 2009, two MCSO officers came to the hospital to take Mendiola–Martinez to court. The officers removed the restraints from her ankle to allow her to change into her jail uniform. When she finished changing, an officer attached handcuffs to her wrists and metal cuffs to her ankles. The handcuffs were three to four inches apart. In her jail uniform, socks, and cuffs, Mendiola–Martinez was escorted to the nurse's office on a lower floor where other MCSO detainees

836 F.3d 1245

were waiting and lined up. Still in cuffs and under escort, she had to return to her hospital room to take her medication. She then returned downstairs, where officers chained her to other detainees, and led her out of the building. No one gave her a wheelchair. Mendiola–Martinez was subsequently transported to a jail clinic to continue her recovery. Within two days of leaving the Medical Center, she was sentenced to time served, and released from MCSO custody.

A

While Mendiola–Martinez was in jail, the MCSO had in effect a written policy regarding the...