holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because “[t] he evidence does not establish that jail officials were aware that [the detainee who died from drug overdose] had a sufficiently serious medical need or that they acted in conscious disregard by refusing medical care[;][a] lthough [the detainee] was clearly intoxicated, jail personnel had no indication that she was experiencing an overdose, and she did not appear to exhibit symptoms that would make it objectively clear that she had overdosed or was in immediate need of medical attention”
How later courts described this case
- holding that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because “[t] he evidence does not establish that jail officials were aware that [the detainee who died from drug overdose] had a sufficiently serious medical need or that they acted in conscious disregard by refusing medical care[;][a] lthough [the detainee] was clearly intoxicated, jail personnel had no indication that she was experiencing an overdose, and she did not appear to exhibit symptoms that would make it objectively clear that she had overdosed or was in immediate need of medical attention”
- defendants entitled to qualified immunity because “at the time of the events [], an intoxicated detainee had no clearly established constitutional right to a hospital evaluation in the absence of medical need that was both ‘apparent and serious’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0481n.06
08-6021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
FILED
WENDELL SMITH, ) Jul 10, 2009
) LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
)
v. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
PIKE COUNTY, KENTUCKY; RODNEY A. ) EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SCOTT; DEXTER COLEMAN; MARK )
CANTRELL, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
Before: DAUGHTREY, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Wendell Smith, in his capacity as administrator of the estate
of Rachel Roberts and guardian of Roberts’s two minor children, appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment to the defendants on claims resulting from Roberts’s death
while in custody at the Pike County Detention Center. The plaintiff alleged in his complaint
that jail officials were liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they acted with deliberate
indifference in failing to provide medical treatment for Roberts, in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff also claimed that Pike County was subject to
municipal liability under § 1983 for failure to train its officers and employees to assess
intoxicated inmates for drug overdoses. The district court held that in the absence of a
clearly established constitutional right to the specific medical treatment in question, the
defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. We find no reversible error and affirm.
Smith v. Pike County, Ky. et al.
08-6021
Following her arrest for public intoxication and possession of a controlled substance,
Roberts arrived at the Pike County detention center for booking with glassy eyes and other
signs of intoxication. In response to an intake screening questionnaire, she denied
ingesting a dangerous quantity of drugs and indicated that she understood that she could
ask for medical attention if she needed it. Because Roberts was able to walk, sign her
name, and respond to questions, albeit with some difficulty, she was placed in a holding
cell and observed through the cell window every twenty minutes, in accordance with jail
policy. Jail personnel entered her cell once when she rolled off of her floor mat while
sleeping and a second time when they attempted to wake her for dinner. Later that
evening, approximately eight hours after booking, another inmate housed in Roberts’s cell
noticed that she was not breathing. Later autopsy results established that Roberts had
died of an overdose of hydrocodone and oxycodone.
The evidence does not establish that jail officials were aware that Roberts had a
sufficiently serious medical need or that they acted in conscious disregard by refusing
medical care to Roberts. Although Roberts was clearly intoxicated, jail personnel had no
indication that she was experiencing an overdose, and she did not appear to exhibit
symptoms that would make it objectively clear that she had overdosed or was in immediate
need of medical attention. See Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890, 899-900
(6th Cir. 2004). As the district judge characterized the situation:
[Her] symptoms are not atypical nor do they distinguish Ms. Roberts from the
multitude of drug and alcohol abusers the jail admits everyday. Fortunately,
2
Smith v. Pike County, Ky. et al.
08-6021
most, if not all, of those admitted “sleep off” their intoxication. Unfortunately,
Ms. Roberts did not.
Because, at the time of the events at the Pike County jail, an intoxicated detainee had no
clearly established constitutional right to a hospital evaluation in the absence of medical
need that was both “apparent and serious,” Grayson v. Peed, 195 F.3d 692, 695 (4th Cir.
1999), the district court correctly held that the defendants were entitled to qualified
immunity. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001).1 Finally, because there is no
individual liability for a constitutional violation, there can be no municipal liability for failure
to train. See Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 687 (6th Cir. 2001); see also
City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986).
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on
appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in
dismissing the complaint. Because the reasons why summary judgment was appropriately
entered for the defendants have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of
a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court based upon the reasoning set
out by that court in its memorandum opinion dated August 18, 2008.
1
The Supreme Court recently addressed the test for qualified immunity found in
Saucier v. Katz. See Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S.Ct. 808 (2009). However, Pearson does
not make a substantive change in the standard for qualified immunity; instead, it allows
courts to re-order the procedural steps mandated by Saucier. See 129 S. Ct. at 818.
Thus, Pearson does not alter the qualified immunity analysis conducted by the district court
in this case.
3