Part 2: case summaries by major topic Part 2.

• Position: Case overview

32. PRETRIAL DETENTION U.S. District Court Branton v. City of Moss Point, 503 F.Supp.2d 809 SUICIDE (S.D.Miss. 2007). The son of a pre-trial detainee MEDICAL CARE who had committed suicide while in custody, filed suit against the city and jail officers asserting claims pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for failure to train, failure to adopt a policy for safe custodial care of suicidal detainees, and failure to adopt a policy of furnishing medical care to suicidal detainees. The detainee was detained on suspicion of drunk driving and was resistant during the booking process. During the booking process the detainee answered a series of questions. When he was asked, "Have you ever attempted suicide or are you thinking about it now?" he responded, "No." He was taken to a cell that was designated for intoxicated or combative prisoners, given a sheet and a blanket, and was locked in the cell at 3:30 a.m. While conducting a jail check at approximately 5:30 a.m., an officer discovered the detainee kneeling in a corner of the cell with the sheet around his neck. He was unable to be revived. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motions in part and denied in part. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by a genuine issue of material fact as to whether jail officers had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of suicide by the detainee, and that fact issues precluded summary judgment in the claim against the city and officers in their official capacities. (City of Moss Point, Mississippi) U.S. District Court Cox v. Hartshorn, 503 F.Supp.2d 1078 (C.D.Ill. MEDICAL CARE 2007). A former pretrial detainee in a county jail brought a [section] 1983 action against a county sheriff and county jail nurse, alleging that he was denied proper medical care within the county jail in violation of his constitutional rights. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. According to the court, the detainee's medical complaint of a foot rash did not rise to the level of an objectively serious medical need, so as to afford the detainee due process protections against the county sheriff and county jail nurse's alleged deliberate indifference to his request for medical attention. The court noted that the detainee's fungal foot rash was not so serious that it was life threatening or posed a risk of needless pain or lingering disability, and after being treated by a nurse, the detainee did not submit any further medical requests for treatment of the rash, nor did he receive any treatment of the rash after leaving the county jail. (Vermilion County Jail, Illinois) U.S. District Court Desroche v. Strain, 507 F.Supp.2d 571 (E.D.La. CONDITIONS 2007). A pre-trial detainee brought a pro se, in CROWDING forma pauperis action against prison officials, MEDICAL CARE alleging improper conditions of confinement, PRIVACY negligent medical treatment, invasion of privacy, and excessive force. The district court dismissed the action. The court held that the alleged conditions of the detainee's confinement, including being required to sleep on the floor of an overcrowded holding tank, being deprived of a mattress, and being provided with water only in a dirty sink, if proven, did not violate his Eighth Amendment or due process rights, given that he experienced such conditions for only ten days, and that use of sink did not cause him to suffer disease or other serious harm. The court found that the detainee's attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was not a serious condition, and therefore any denial of medical care for the condition did not violate his Eighth Amendment rights. The court noted that even if ADHD was a serious condition, prison officials were not deliberately indifferent in treating it, and any denial of medical care did not violate the detainee's Eighth Amendment rights, in that the detainee merely disagreed with the treatment offered by two doctors at the jail. According to the court, a deputy's alleged recording of the detainee in a jail dormitory with a cell phone video camera, if proven, was not a violation of any constitutional right to privacy, inasmuch as the detainee had no expectation of privacy while in a public area of the jail, and any possible harm to the detainee's reputation was so speculative as to be non-existent. (River Parish Correction Center, Louisiana) U.S. District Court Doe No. 1 v. Balaam, 494 F.Supp.2d 1173 (D.Nev. SEARCHES 2007). Arrestees who were subjected to strip searches when they self-surrendered at a county jail and were then released on their own recognizance, pursuant to the sheriff department's contraband control policy, brought an action against the county and county sheriff. The arrestees sought damages, attorney fees, and a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from conducting certain strip searches, prohibiting the defendants from engaging in similar unconstitutional conduct in the future, and requiring and ordering the defendants to institute proper training and policy changes. The inmates moved for partial summary judgment and the district court granted the motion. The court held that the county's policy of strip searching all arrestees who self-surrendered to the county jail, absent reasonable suspicion that any arrestee was smuggling contraband, was unreasonable, and thus amounted to deliberate indifference to the arrestees' Fourth Amendment rights, especially given that all of the arrestees were booked and then released on their own recognizance without ever being housed with the general jail population. (Washoe County Detention Facility, Nevada) U.S. District Court Eichelman v. Lancaster County, 510 F.Supp.2d 377 CLASSIFICATION (E.D.Pa. 2007). A detainee brought a [section] FAILURE TO 1983 action against a county, the warden of the PROTECT county prison, and a corrections officer, seeking monetary relief relating to his treatment while detained in the county prison for a short period of time. The district court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment in part and denied in part. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the corrections officer acted with deliberate indifference to the detainee's safety when he informed inmates of the arrival of the detainee charged with shooting incident involving a two-year old boy. The officer knew that the detainee was not in protective custody but rather was in the general population among violent offenders with whom he would have contact and was housed in a cell furthest from the guard post. The inmate subsequently suffered injuries at the hands of other inmates. The court also found genuine issues of material fact as to whether the officer acted recklessly and callously by intentionally inciting inmate animosity toward the detainee and as to whether he acted with an awareness of the risk that his actions would result in serious harm to the detainee when other inmates inevitably would have access to him. (Lancaster County Prison, Pennsylvania) U.S. Appeals Court Forgan v. Howard County, Tex., 494 F.3d 518 (5th SUICIDE Cir. 2007). The family of a county jail inmate MENTAL HEALTH who committed suicide brought an action against INTAKE SCREENING the county, county sheriffs department, and CLOTHING various jail officers, alleging deliberate indifference under [section] 1983 and claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The inmate was arrested for driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana. During the booking process, the inmate indicated that he was medicated for a number of mental ailments, including depression, but that he was not thinking about killing himself at the time. Based on this and other information, a jail officer classified the inmate as a "risk" for suicide, meaning that he would be checked every fifteen minutes. The inmate was issued a pair of trousers and a shirt to wear, and he was placed in a holding cell. After approximately one hour, the inmate was found hanging from his jail-issued trousers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants and the family appealed. The appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that providing a county jail inmate with non-defective trousers, which the inmate later used to commit suicide, did not equate to "use of property" by the county, within the meaning of the TTCA, and that the county was not liable under [section] 1983. According to the court, the county was not liable in the [section] 1983 deliberate indifference claim absent a showing that the county lacked an adequate suicide prevention policy for jail inmates, or that the county failed to adequately train its jail officials in suicide prevention. The court noted that proof of a single incident generally will not support a finding of inadequate training as a matter of custom or policy, for the purpose of establishing [section] 1983 municipal liability. (Howard County Jail, Texas) U.S. Appeals Court Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. MEDICAL CARE 2007). A pretrial detainee in a county jail, who PLRA- Prison had been pregnant during her detention and whose Litigation Reform child had been stillborn, brought a [section] Act 1983 action against county and jail officials, a physician, and the jail's medical services provider, alleging deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants based on failure to satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The detainee appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. The court held that the jail's administrative appeal procedure for inmates was not "available" within the meaning of PLRA, where the detainee had no way of knowing about it. According to the court, the detainee adequately exhausted her available remedies under PLRA by...