Minix v. Canarecci

• Decision Date: 26 February 2010
• Docket Number: Nos. 09-2001, 09-2817.,s. 09-2001, 09-2817.
• Citation: 597 F.3d 824
• Parties: Cathy MINIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank CANARECCI, Jr., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

597 F.3d 824

Cathy MINIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank CANARECCI, Jr., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 09-2001, 09-2817.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Dec. 2, 2009.

Decided Feb. 26, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Sean E. Kenyon (argued), Hoeppner Wagner & Evans, Merrillville, IN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

James F. Groves (argued), Lee, Groves & Zalas, South Bend, IN, Wendell Walsh May, Oberfell & Lorber, Mishawaka, IN Milford M. Miller, Rothberg, Logan &amp Warsco LLP, Fort Wayne, IN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BAUER, KANNE, and TINDER, Circuit Judges.

TINDER, Circuit Judge.

While incarcerated at the St. Joseph County Jail, Gregory Zick, an inmate with a history of suicidal tendencies, took his own life. Zick's mother, Cathy Minix brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against several jail officials for their alleged deliberate indifference to Zick's suicide risk. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

I. Background

Gregory Zick was a mental health patient at Indiana's Richmond State Hospital. In March 2003, Zick was on leave from the hospital at the request of his mother, Cathy Minix, to attend a family funeral. Unfortunately, Zick became separated from Minix and, on March 22, was arrested on charges of theft and battery.

Zick was incarcerated at the St. Joseph County Jail. During booking, jail personnel noted that Zick had laceration scars on his wrist and neck, and Zick admitted to attempting suicide in the previous month. It was also learned that Zick was taking several prescription medications to inhibit suicidal thoughts, and the jail arranged for Zick to continue receiving those medications.

The jail provided for inmates' health care by contracting with outside companies. Memorial Home Care, Inc. had an agreement with the jail to provide medical, dental, and psychiatric care. Dr. Douglas David was a Memorial employee who performed medical director services at Memorial's jail facility, and Nurse Jeanne James was the manager of the facility who supervised the nursing staff. The jail also had an agreement with Madison Center, Inc., a community mental health center, to provide mental health services on a referral basis.

Shortly after Zick's incarceration, a jail classification officer wrote a letter to Nurse James indicating that Zick should be placed on a suicide watch in light of his recent suicide attempt and depressed attitude. Zick was accordingly housed in medical segregation for observation. A few days later, on March 27, Madison employee Christine Lonz met with Zick during her weekly visit to the jail for mental heath assessments. Lonz, who had experience but no formal licensure in mental health treatment, did not review Zick's medical chart or list of medications. She also did not speak with any jail personnel regarding Zick's condition or learn that he had been placed on a suicide watch. During her deposition, Lonz testified that she could not recall the specifics of her conversation with Zick, only that he was generally polite and cooperative. After speaking with Zick, Lonz filed a brief report noting that Zick denied having suicidal thoughts.

The same day as Lonz's assessment, Nurse James prepared a form requesting that Zick be taken off suicide watch in medical segregation and transferred into the general population, noting that Zick denied having suicidal tendencies.

About a month later, on April 21, Zick refused his medications, and jail officers noted that a blade was missing from Zick's razor. Officers moved Zick to medical segregation for a suicide watch and charged Zick with "attempted suicide, " improper use of materials, and disruptive conduct. Over the next two days of obser-vation in medical segregation, nurses reported that Zick was alert and polite and denied suicidal thoughts, and on April 23, James arranged for Zick's transfer out of medical segregation. Because Zick had been charged with attempted suicide and other¹ violations, he was transferred to disciplinary segregation rather than back into the general population. A jail officer saw Zick in his cell at dinner time, just after 4:00 p.m., but the next recorded check on Zick was not until 11:00 p.m., when an officer discovered that Zick had used his bed sheet to hang himself from the bars on his cell window. A nurse soon arrived and determined that Zick was unresponsive.

Minix, as the personal representative of Zick's estate, brought a § 1983 action against multiple defendants, including Madison Center, Lonz, Memorial Home Care, Nurse James, Dr. David, the St. Joseph County Sheriff (Frank Canarecci, Jr.), and several other jail and county officials. Minix alleged that the defendants violated Zick's Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by displaying deliberate indifference to his risk of suicide. Minix also raised supplemental claims under Indiana law.

On Minix's deliberate indifference claim, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants except Memorial, Dr. David, and the Sheriff in his official capacity. The court found a triable issue on whether Memorial and the Sheriff were liable for maintaining inadequate suicide-prevention policies at the jail. As for David, the court determined that a jury could find that David acted with deliberate indifference in delegating the authority to assess suicidal inmates to an unqualified nursing staff.

Upon the defendants' motion to reconsider, however, the district court reversed its summary judgment ruling with respect to Memorial and David. The court ac knowledged that, in its initial ruling, the court erroneously relied on the opinion of one of Minix's experts, Dr. Gutierrez, who concluded that the jail nursing staff lacked the required training to assess Zick's suicide risk. The court further determined that Gutierrez's opinion was not reliable enough to be admitted as expert evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. With the exclusion of Gutierrez's opinion, Minix's evidence was insufficient to avoid summary judgment on her deliberate indifference claim against Memorial and David.

That left Minix's official-capacity claim against the Sheriff as the only federal claim in the lawsuit. But the Sheriff made Minix an offer of judgment in the amount of $75,000 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. Minix accepted the offer, and the district court entered judgment against the Sheriff, who has since paid Minix the judgment amount. Having resolved all of Minix's federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Minix's state-law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.

Minix appeals the district court's adverse summary judgment ruling on her deliberate indifference claim with respect to only defendants Lonz, Madison Center, Nurse James, Dr. David, and Memorial Home Care. The portions of the judgment dismissing the other jail and county officials are not appealed.

II. Analysis

A. Jurisdiction and Mootness

We begin by addressing whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal, and specifically, whether Minix's acceptance of the Sheriffs $75,000 offer of judgment mooted this case. Minix is entitled to only one full compensation for any single, indivisible injury caused by the defendants, who are each jointly and severally liable for that injury. Watts v. Laurent, 774 F.2d 168, 179 (7th Cir.1985). So if the Sheriffs $75,000 offer of judgment was full compensation for Minix's injury, Minix could not recover more compensation from any other defendant. Minix would be left with no viable claim for compensatory damages against the other defendants in this appeal, suggesting that her appeal is moot.

Still, even assuming that the Sheriffs offer fully compensated Minix's injury (which is doubtful, when compared with verdicts in other jail suicide cases, see, e.g. Woodward v. Corr. Med. Servs., 368 F.3d 917, 920, 930 (7th Cir.2004) (upholding $250,000 in compensatory and $1.5 million in punitive damages)), we conclude that the offer does not moot Minix's appeal. Instead, Minix's acceptance of the Sheriffs offer merely gives the remaining defendants a possible defense that, should they be found liable, Minix is precluded from recovering additional compensatory damages from them. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 49 (1982) ("A judgment against one person liable for a loss does not terminate a claim that the injured party may have against another person who may be liable therefor."); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 885(3) & cmt. e (1979) (Compensation paid by one jointly and severally liable tortfeasor diminishes the plaintiffs claim against the remaining tortfeasors.).

We also note that, even if Minix were precluded from seeking additional compensatory damages, the possibility of punitive damages would avoid mootness with respect to several defendants. Minix's complaint demands, in addition to compensatory damages, punitive damages against the defendants in this case. Although the principle of joint and several liability prevents Minix from recovering duplicative compensatory damages, it does not affect the defendants' individual liability for punitive damages, which are assessed separately against each defendant. Bosco v. Serhant, 836 F.2d 271, 281 (7th Cir.1987) (clarifying that the principle of one full recovery applies only to compensatory, not punitive, damages). Moreover the $75,000 judgment paid by the Sheriff could not have been towards any punitive damages claim, since Minix obtained that judgment against the Sheriff in his official rather than individual capacity. This official-capacity claim against the Sheriff is considered one against a municipality, and municipalities are immune from punitive damages in § 1983 suits. United States ex rel, Chandler v. Cook County, III., 277 F.3d 969, 977 (7th Cir.2002) (citing City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, 453 U.S. 247 271, 101 S.Ct. 2748, 69 L.Ed.2d 616 (1981)...