Stanfill v. Talton

• Decision Date: 29 March 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 5:10–CV–255(MTT).
• Citation: 851 F.Supp.2d 1346
• Parties: Raymond D. STANFILL, Plaintiff, v. Cullen TALTON, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia

851 F.Supp.2d 1346

Raymond D. STANFILL, Plaintiff,

v.Cullen TALTON, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:10–CV–255(MTT).

United States District Court,

M.D. Georgia,

Macon Division.

March 29, 2012.

Blake Jelks Smith, Macon, GA, Craig A. Webster, Norcross, GA, for Plaintiff.

Jason C. Waymire, Terry E. Williams, Buford, GA, for Defendants.

ORDER

MARC T. TREADWELL, District Judge.

This case concerns the treatment of Robert Lewis Stanfill (“Stanfill”) by various officers and medical personnel at the Houston County Detention Center (“HCDC”) on July 2 and 3, 2008. Stanfill died while in HCDC custody on July 3, 2008. Plaintiff Raymond Stanfill, Robert Stanfill's father, brings this action individually and as the administrator of his son's estate, alleging that the Defendants violated his son's rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He also brings medical malpractice claims under Georgia law against Defendant Southern Health Partners (“SHP”).¹

This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Raymond Stanfill (Doc. 85) and the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Sheriff Cullen Talton, Major Charles Holt, Sergeant James Wheat, Lieutenant David Carrick, Corporal Donald Lester, Officer Eddie Serrano, Corporal Carol Oates, Deputy James Collins, and Lieutenant Michael Garrett (collectively referred to as the “Houston County Defendants”) (Doc. 89). Also before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. 54). For the reasons set forth below, the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions is denied, the Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied, and the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

I. Factual Background

The relevant facts are taken from the Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and the parties' Statements of Material Facts and responses thereto (Docs. 126 & 127). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) and Local Rule 56, all material facts not specifically controverted by specific citation to the record are deemed admitted, unless otherwise inappropriate.

A. Parties/HCDC Chain of Command

Defendant Cullen Talton has served as the Sheriff of Houston County since 1973. As Sheriff, Talton sits at the top of the Houston County Sheriff's Office chain of command. Although Talton retains ultimate authority over the activities of the Sheriff's Office, he delegates authority over HCDC to Major Charles Holt and the officers beneath Major Holt. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 275–278). Holt has served as the primary administrator of the Houston County Detention Center since 2000. In that capacity, he is responsible for the overall supervision and operation of HCDC. Holt's duties include promulgating HCDC policies and procedures. During the events in question, neither Talton nor Holt was present at HCDC, and neither interacted with Stanfill in the 24 hours preceding his death.

In July 2008, Lieutenants David Carrick and Michael Garrett were shift supervisors at HCDC. During their shifts, Carrick and Garrett had responsibility for the overall operation of HCDC. Their duties included, but were not limited to, receiving and releasing inmates, surveillance of inmates, and supervision of other officers as they interacted with inmates. Sergeant James Wheat was also a shift supervisor and had been working as a jail officer for approximately 12 years. At the time of the incident, Wheat was assigned to inmate housing, where he supervised the deputies and made sure the housing units were properly operated. Corporal Donald Lester, Officer Eddie Serrano, and Corporal Carol Oates were all detention officers with various responsibilities. Deputy James Collins was a booking clerk rather than a detention officer, and therefore had no law enforcement responsibilities and very limited interaction with inmates. Collins' duties were limited to entering data into the computer.

Defendant Southern Health Partners, Inc., is the independent contractor retained to provide medical staff and treatment to inmates at HCDC. SHP provides HCDC with licensed, qualified medical personnel and 24–hour access to basic medical care for inmates. Ordinarily, inmates would provide SHP medical staff with prescription drug information during the booking process, and it would then be SHP's responsibility to administer any medication. SHP has a mental health nurse on staff, and they also coordinate mental health care with outside mental health providers. Mental health services are only provided during the day shift, and, accordingly, mental health staff is unavailable at night. HCDC officers are not tasked with supervision of medical personnel, and, with very limited exceptions, are required to comply with all medical directives of SHP staff regarding inmate medical care.

B. The Incident

On June 30, 2008, Stanfill was arrested for burglary pursuant to a valid warrant and booked into HCDC. (Doc. 127 ¶ 45). Stanfill had been incarcerated at HCDC on numerous prior occasions. (Doc. 127 ¶ 7). In addition to his criminal history, Stanfill also had a history and reputation at HCDC of cutting his wrists and threatening suicide and other self-harm. (Doc. 127 ¶ 8). Despite HCDC precautions, Stanfill was adept at obtaining materials that could be used to cut himself or reopen old wounds, such as buttons from his prison jumpsuit, pieces of broken light bulbs, and even his toenails. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 11–12, 30). Stanfill was also known to associate with other “cutter” inmates in order to obtain cutting materials and to offer and receive “encouragement” for his and their self-destructive acts. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 13–16).

Stanfill treated HCDC staff with similar disregard. His “ordinary routine” was to verbally abuse HCDC officers and medical personnel using profane language and threats of physical harm to both himself and others. (Doc. 127 ¶ 33). When Stanfill had to be restrained, he would spit on officers and become agitated, and on at least one occasion, he attempted to throw blood on an officer. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 34–36). Other times, Stanfill would refuse to take his medication, and during one previous incarceration, he falsely claimed he could not breathe. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 37–39).

Because of his behavior, Stanfill was often placed on suicide watch pursuant to HCDC policy requiring special precautions, such as preventative clothing and restraints, for inmates with suicidal tendencies. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 17–18). On one previous occasion, Stanfill was restricted to a restraint bed for approximately 36 hours, with periodic releases. (Doc. 127 ¶ 20). In addition to his ability to find ways to injure himself, Stanfill was also adept at escaping from, or at least lessening the effect of, various restraints and other protective devices used by HCDC. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 23–27). Based on his prior incarcerations, most, but not all, HCDC officers and SHP medical personnel were familiar with Stanfill's tendencies. (Doc. 127 ¶ 52).

During the course of his booking on June 30, 2008, Stanfill was sent to speak with the medical staff, but he refused to speak with Nurse Lily Green or the mental health nurse. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 46, 51). It is undisputed that neither Stanfill nor any member of his family provided HCDC with any needed medication, nor is there any evidence that Stanfill was prescribed any medication at or immediately preceding the time of his June/July 2008 incarceration. (Doc. 127 ¶¶ 47–48, 50).² Due to Stanfill's history of self-harm, at the time of his booking he was labeled a suicide risk and was placed on suicide watch, which required officers to visually check Stanfill every 15 minutes. ( Id. ¶¶ 54–55). These precautions lasted through the afternoon of July 2, 2008. (Doc. 127 ¶ 56).

On the afternoon of July 2, Stanfill was being housed in cell J–1, which the Court notes for purposes that will become apparent, had a sink from which Stanfill could drink freely. (Doc. 127 ¶ 57). At approximately 5:45 p.m., Sergeant James Wheat discovered that Stanfill had placed a tourniquet around his arm and, with pieces of a metal button from his prison jumpsuit, cut his arm. (Doc. 127 ¶ 59). For whatever reason, Stanfill used the tourniquet to build up the blood and then released it, causing blood to spread across the cell. (Doc. 127 ¶ 61). Medical staff was immediately alerted, and Stanfill was taken to the medical area where his arm was bandaged and nurses assessed his condition. (Doc. 127 ¶ 84). While in medical, Wheat discovered that Stanfill had additional pieces of the metal button hidden in his mouth with which he presumably intended to cut himself again. (Doc. 127 ¶ 85). Wheat was familiar with Stanfill from his prior incarcerations, and was aware of one previous occasion in which Stanfill obtained glass from another inmate and used the glass to cut his own arm. (Doc. 127 ¶ 79). While Stanfill was washing the blood from his body in the shower, he allegedly told Wheat that if given the opportunity, he would kill himself. (Doc. 127 ¶ 90). Despite already being on suicide watch, Wheat concluded from this statement that Stanfill was a serious suicide threat. However, because Wheat felt he was already taking the necessary precautions to make sure Stanfill would not hurt himself further, Wheat did not report the suicide threat to his superiors. (Doc. 127 ¶ 90). After his shower, Stanfill was placed in a suicide smock, which is a “one-piece quilted material with Velcro adjustments on the shoulders.” ³ (Carrick Dep. at 93).

Lieutenant David Carrick was the night-shift supervisor on July 2 and 3, and in that capacity had overall responsibility of HCDC from 6:00 p.m. on July 2 until 6:00 a.m. on July 3. Due to Stanfill's suicide threats and because he was known to reopen his old wounds, Carrick ordered Wheat to place Stanfill in a restraint chair. (Doc. 127 ¶ 94). This order was made sometime between 6:00 and 6:30 p.m. on the night of July 2. When Stanfill was placed in the chair, he was in the medical area and in the presence of a nurse, who...