Mombourquette ex rel. Mombourquette v. Amundson
| Decision Date | 12 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-C-748-C.,05-C-748-C. |
| Citation | 469 F.Supp.2d 624 |
| Parties | Brenda MOMBOURQUETTE, by her guardian Tammy MOMBOURQUETTE, E.S. (a minor), and C.S. (a minor), Wisconsin Department Of Health And Family Services, Plaintiffs, v. Charles AMUNDSON, Individually in his supervisory capacity, Jeanne Reinart, Individually, Candace Warner, Individually, David Schaldach Individually, Sandi Wegner, Individually, Anna Janusheske, Individually, Mike Wildes, Individually, Janita Leis, Individually, Sue Wieman, Individually, and Patricia Fish, Individually, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Michael Devanie, Devanie & Belzer, S.C., La Crosse, WI, for Plaintiffs.
Charles H. Bohl, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Brenda Mombourquette attempted to commit suicide by hanging herself with a bed sheet while she was detained in the Monroe County jail. Although two previous attempts of self harm several days earlier did not cause long lasting injury, plaintiff was left seriously brain damaged after she made a third attempt. Plaintiff brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 through her sister and children against various jail staff members, who plaintiffs believe violated Brenda Mombourquette's constitutional rights when they failed to protect her from harming herself. (For the remainder of the opinion, I will refer to plaintiff Brenda Mombourquette simply as "plaintiff" because most facts relevant to summary judgment relate to her solely.) Each of the defendants moved for summary judgment in three different groups: (1) defendants Charles Amundson, Candace Warner, Sandi Wegner, Anna Janusheske, Mike Wildes, Janita Leis, Sue Wieman and Patricia Fish; (2) defendant Jeanne Reinart and (3) defendant David Schaldach, who adopted the briefs and proposed findings of fact submitted by the other parties.
As an initial matter, it is important to understand the scope of plaintiff's claims. Although plaintiff does not say explicitly, it is clear from a review of her complaint, her brief opposing defendants' motions for summary judgment and her proposed findings of fact that her claim is directed at defendant's failure to prevent her attempted suicide on November 22, 2002. I do not understand plaintiff to be asserting a separate claim for the failure to prevent her from cutting her wrists on November 13. Rather, I understand her to be relying on facts surrounding that incident as evidence of defendants' deliberate indifference to her suicide attempt on November 22.
In addition to defendants' motions for summary judgment, two other motions are before the court: (1) plaintiff's motion to supplement her summary judgment materials with a document she obtained after filing her opposition brief; and (2) defendant Schaldach's "motion in limine" to exclude evidence that he engaged in sexual activity with another female inmate while plaintiff was detained at the Monroe County jail.
Both motions will be denied. With respect to the motion to supplement the record, plaintiff seeks to add a 2004 resignation letter from the jail administrator to defendant Charles Amundson. However, the document adds no new evidence to the record, so it is unnecessary to consider its admissibility. For reasons discussed further below, defendant Schaldach's motion in limine must be denied because plaintiff's complaint about Schaldach's misconduct may be relevant to show that both defendants Schaldach and Amundson were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff's health and safety.
Cases involving an unfortunate event like a jail suicide attempt are difficult for all parties involved. They are difficult as well for a judge or juror, who must resolve disputed issues on the basis of the law and not on feelings of sympathy either for plaintiffs, who have suffered greatly, or for defendants, who have a difficult and often thankless job. As is usually the case, the facts are not one-sided. However, I conclude that summary judgment is not appropriate with respect to any of the defendants because a reasonable jury could find that each of them was deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk that plaintiff would attempt to harm herself.
From the parties' proposed findings of fact and the record, I find that the following facts are undisputed.
Defendant Charles Amundson became sheriff of Monroe County in 2000. As sheriff, defendant Amundson has the obligation to "take the charge and custody of the jail maintained by the county and the persons in the jail." After Amundson was elected, he met with Wisconsin Department of Corrections jail inspector Scott Morris, who told Amundson that the jail was "very poorly run" and "poorly supervised." In particular, Morris believed that the jail lacked effective supervision and training of first line supervisors such as defendant David Schaldach, who was a lieutenant at the jail.
Mark. Pressler became the jail administrator in February 2002. One problem he identified was a practice called "paper whipping," or a failure to perform cell checks. Pressler found that there were five to six hour gaps between cell checks, despite log entries indicating that checks were being performed regularly. Pressler reported numerous problems to Amundson regarding staff misconduct in 2002, including threats, vandalism and sexual misconduct with inmates. Amundson did not investigate any of these complaints. In Pressler's view, there was no supervision of the jail by Amundson and no accountability of the jail staff.
In October 2002, state jail inspector Morris issued a report to Amundson, following an annual inspection of the jail that included the following criticisms:
• Classification and housing of suicidal inmates: "Proper segregation is of special concern in regards to housing high-risk inmates including those with mental health issues; those considered suicide risk, violent and combative inmates, and those with significant medical issues." Morris noted that it was the seventh consecutive year that the jail was in violation of a state law relating to segregation of inmates. (Defendant Amundson admits this was a "real problem" in 2002.)
• Crisis intervention: (Defendant Amundson did not know what the crisis intervention program was because, as he testified, he left "those type of things up to the jail administrator.")
• Mental health screening reports:
Morris concluded that staff needed training on "policies and procedures related to mental health access and treatment within the jail." Although Morris did conclude that there were "significant and measurable improvement ... in the overall operation of the jail," he credited these improvements to Pressler rather than defendant Amundson.
Defendants Mike Wildes, Janita Leis, Patricia Fish, Sandi Wegner and Anna Janusheske were correctional officers at the Monroe County jail in 2002. They were trained by the state of Wisconsin in accordance with the standards developed and maintained by the Law Enforcement Standards Board of the Wisconsin Department of Justice. That training program includes the following information about preventing suicides of incarcerated individuals:
. Suicides and suicide attempts are a significant problem in jails; the rate of suicide attempts of jail inmates may be nine times higher than society in general; pretrial detainees are at greater risk than sentenced inmates.
. Officers have a duty to make reasonable efforts to prevents inmates from killing themselves by (1) taking steps to determine possible suicide risk among inmates; and (2) taking steps to prevent inmates who may be or are suicide risks from attempting to commit suicide.
. Proper classification is the primary method for keeping inmates safe.
. Suicide watch is a common form of classification in jails. Aspects of suicide watch include placing the inmate in a certain housing area, removing certain items from the inmate's possession and checking on the inmate more frequently.
. Inmates who have exhibited suicidal tendencies during intake screening or after being confined are at the highest risk.
. Because most people considering suicide are ashamed of how they feel, they usually do not say,
. Only a small percentage (around 10%) of people who feel suicidal really want to die.
. People who have a history of suicide attempts are at higher risk for future attempts.
. The more attempts a person has made, the greater the likelihood that the person will eventually die from suicide. This is true even of inmates who made several attempts that seem to be attempts at manipulation of jail staff.
. Inmates who have harmed themselves on purpose should be considered higher suicide risks, even if their injuries are not potentially life threatening. This includes behavior such as wrist cutting.
Defendant Jeanne Reinart is a registered nurse. She has received training in mental health, including suicide assessments, and she has made mental health assessments in the course of her employment at the Monroe County jail, where she began working in August 2000. With respect to making mental health assessments, Reinart was taught to document the facts she observes without offering her own opinion.
In October 2002 or early November 2002, all ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. Pitt Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...Oct. 2, 2007) (finding that minor child had a claim for deprivation of the companionship of his father); Mombourquette v. Amundson, 469 F.Supp.2d 624, 654 (W.D.Wis.2007) (finding circuit precedent did not foreclose claim by minor child regarding loss of companionship of parent). As a final ......
-
Paine v. Johnson
...medical treatment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); see also Mombourquette v. Amundson, 469 F.Supp.2d 624, 643 (W.D.Wisc.2007) (there is questionable value in the plaintiff's self assessment of mental state when other circumstantial evidence ......
-
Wade v. Castillo
...imposed obligation to take "reasonable measures" to abate the risk. Farmer, 511 U.S. at 847, 114 S.Ct. 1970; Mombourquette v. Amundson, 469 F.Supp.2d 624, 638 (W.D.Wis.2007). Exercising medical judgment usually qualifies as taking "reasonable measures." However, if a medical provider's acti......
-
Estate of Hill v. Richards
...act of self harm was an "attention getting scheme." Plt.'s Br., dkt. # 45, at 12; Dft.'s Br., dkt. # 58, at 7. In Mombourquette v. Amundson, 469 F.Supp.2d 624 (W.D.Wis.2007), I assumed that the Farmer standard applied to suicide cases and held that the constitutional duty to prevent a suici......