Regina Barton v. Chad Ledbetter

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2835

___________________________

Regina Barton, as personal representative for the Estate of Jeffry Alan Barton

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Donnie Taber, individually and in his official capacity as the Malvern Chief of

Police; Tim Callison, individually and in his official capacity as a Malvern Police Officer

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

Chad Ledbetter, individually as the Hot Spring County Sheriff; George Wright,

individually and in his official capacity as Hot Spring County Jail Administrator;

Amie Martin, individually and in her official capacity as Hot Spring County Deputy

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellants

Brian Keith Orrell, Jr., Administrator of the Estate of Brian Orrell, in his

Individual Capacity, also known as Brian Orrell; Zachary Owens, individually and

in his official capacity as an Arkansas State Trooper

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

Hot Spring County, Arkansas

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

City of Malvern, Arkansas; State of Arkansas

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

____________

Submitted: April 11, 2018

Filed: November 14, 2018

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

____________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Regina Barton, as personal representative for the Estate of Jeffry Alan Barton

(Barton), filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of

1993, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-123-105. She alleged that Hot Spring County Deputy

Amie Martin was deliberately indifferent to Barton’s serious medical needs and that

Hot Spring County Jail Administrator George Wright failed to adequately train or

supervise Martin, thereby causing the deprivation of Barton’s constitutional rights.

Regina Barton further alleged that Hot Spring County did not adequately train its

detention facility workers and that its policies failed to ensure that detainees received

adequate medical care. We affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to

Martin, we reverse the denial of qualified immunity to Wright, and we dismiss the

County’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I. Background

On September 12, 2011, Barton was involved in a single-vehicle accident at an

overpass located on U.S. Highway 270. He was placed under arrest after a portable

breath test indicated that his blood alcohol concentration was .117. Barton could not

-2-

stand without assistance. When he fell to the ground during the search of his person,

he briefly was not responsive, and an officer checked to make sure that he still had

a pulse. Officers thereafter placed Barton in a patrol car, and Arkansas State Trooper

Zachary Owens transported him to the Hot Spring County detention center for

booking.1

Martin was working at the detention center when Barton arrived at

approximately 3:15 p.m. According to Martin, he “appear[e]d to be highly

intoxicated, his speech was slurred, [and] he was having trouble standing alone.”

Trooper Owens led Barton to a room for additional testing to determine his blood

alcohol concentration. After numerous attempts, Barton was able to provide only one

adequate sample, which indicated a blood alcohol concentration of .115.

Owens thereafter escorted Barton to the booking area where Martin was

stationed. Barton sat on a bench as Owens completed paperwork. When asked by

Owens to stand beside him, Barton walked over to Owens and held the handrail

before collapsing to the ground. Two trustees helped Owens return Barton to the

bench, where he remained seated while Owens finished explaining the citation and

asked him to sign certain documents. Owens instructed Barton three times where to

sign the document, but Barton did not seem to understand the instructions, and he did

not sign the document. Owens told Martin that Barton was under the influence of

alcohol and hydrocodone.

Martin’s arrest-disposition report noted that Barton was under the influence of

alcohol and hydrocodone upon his arrival at the detention center, but that he was

conscious, breathing normally, and did not appear to be suicidal. Martin wrote that

1

In an earlier appeal, we affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to Owens.

See Barton v. Taber, 820 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 2016) (Barton I). The district court later

granted Regina Barton’s motion to dismiss Owens from the lawsuit and dismissed the

claims against him without prejudice. See D. Ct. Order of Mar. 2, 2017.

-3-

Barton was unable to answer any questions about his medical needs or his next of kin.

He could not sign his name or provide a phone number of someone she could call for

him.

Although she knew that Barton had been involved in a car accident

immediately before his arrest and that he was heavily intoxicated, Martin did not

conduct the healthcare screening that the detention center’s policy requires. She

decided to accept Barton into the detention center, placed him in a holding cell, and

allowed Trooper Owens to leave. Martin herself left the detention center at

approximately 4:50 p.m.

During the night, a trustee reported to a jailer that Barton did not seem to be

doing well and that his condition was not improving. Barton died in his cell

sometime that night. His body was found at 12:03 a.m. on September 13, 2011. An

autopsy determined that the cause of death was a heart condition—anomalous right

coronary artery, fatty infiltration of right ventricle and atrium of heart. Small amounts

of ethanol and hydrocodone and a non-toxic level of anti-anxiety medication were

found in Barton’s system.

Wright was serving as the jail administrator when Barton was detained.

Although he had no contact with Barton, Wright was responsible for ensuring that the

detention center’s personnel were adequately trained and were implementing the

County’s policies, which Wright admitted he did not fully understand. Those policies

instructed booking officers to conduct a healthcare screening of an arrestee before

releasing the arresting officer; to refer an intoxicated arrestee to detoxification, or in

the alternative, to seek medical clearance before admitting the individual into the

detention center; to keep intoxicated arrestees under close observation; and to refuse

arrestees who appear to be in a medical emergency.

-4-

The district court denied, in relevant part, the defendants’ motion for summary

judgment. It concluded that neither Martin nor Wright was entitled to qualified

immunity on the § 1983 claims or summary judgment on the state-law claim. With

respect to the County, the district court determined that there was a question of fact

whether the “County had a custom of remaining deliberately indifferent to the

objectively serious medical needs of its detainees, or of failing to train or supervise

its Detention Facility staff.” D. Ct. Order of Aug. 3, 2017, at 9.

II. Qualified Immunity

We have jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified

immunity under the collateral order doctrine. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530

(1985). Our jurisdiction is limited, however, to “abstract issues of law” and does not

extend to the “determination that the evidence is sufficient to permit a particular

finding of fact after trial.” Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 314, 317 (1995). On

appeal from the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity, we accept

as true the facts that the district court found were adequately supported, as well as the

facts that the district court likely assumed, to the extent they are not “blatantly

contradicted by the record.” Walton v. Dawson, 752 F.3d 1109, 1116 (8th Cir. 2014)

(quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007)). We review de novo the issues

of law. Id.

At summary judgment, qualified immunity shields a law enforcement officer

from liability in a § 1983 action unless: “(1) the facts, viewed in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory

right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation.”

Howard v. Kan. City Police Dep’t, 570 F.3d 984, 988 (8th Cir. 2009); see Pearson v.

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231-32 (2009); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818

(1982).

-5-

A. Amie Martin

Regina Barton claims that Martin’s failure to seek medical care for Barton

constituted deliberate indifference to Barton’s serious medical needs, in violation of

his right to due process. See Barton I, 820 F.3d at 964 (applying the Eighth

Amendment deliberate-indifference standard to Regina Barton’s claim against

Owens); Jackson v. Buckman, 756 F.3d 1060, 1065 (8th Cir. 2014) (applying the

Eighth Amendment deliberate-indifference standard to a pretrial detainee’s claim of

failure to provide medical care in violation of the due process clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment); Carpenter v. Gage, 686 F.3d 644, 650 (8th Cir. 2012)

(explaining that “any distinction between a ‘pretrial detainee’ and an ‘arrestee’ does

not affect the analysis”).

To establish a constitutional violation based on deliberate indifference, Regina

Barton must show that Barton suffered from an objectively serious medical need and

that Martin had actual knowledge of that need but deliberately disregarded it. See

Barton I, 820 F.3d at 964-65; see also Thompson v. King, 730 F.3d 742, 746 (8th Cir.

2013) (“A plaintiff claiming deliberate indifference must establish objective and

subjective components.”); Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d 905, 915 (8th Cir. 2011)

(“Whether an inmate’s condition is a serious medical need and whether an official

was deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s serious medical need are questions of

fact.”). A medical need is objectively serious if it has been “diagnosed by a physician

as requiring treatment” or if it is “so obvious that even a layperson would easily

recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention.” Barton I, 820 F.3d at 964 (quoting

Jackson, 756 F.3d at 1065). “[T]o demonstrate that a defendant actually knew of, but

deliberately disregarded, a serious medical need, the plaintiff must establish a mental

state akin to criminal recklessness: disregarding a known risk to the [arrestee’s]

health.” Thompson, 730 F.3d at 746-47 (quoting Vaughn v. Gray, 557 F.3d 904, 908

(8th Cir. 2009)).

-6-

Martin argues that she is entitled to qualified immunity because Barton

presented symptoms of mere intoxication, and not those of an objectively serious

medical need. We disagree. As recounted above, Barton had been in a car accident.

He could not follow simple instructions or answer basic questions; he was unable to

stand without assistance and fell during the booking procedure. Although Barton had

a .115 blood alcohol concentration, he reportedly was so heavily intoxicated that

Wright could not recall whether he had “ever r[u]n into somebody that was in

[Barton’s] particular shape,” and he “d[id]n’t know that any of [his] officers had

either.” In light of the evidence of Barton’s recent car accident, his severe

intoxication, and his drug ingestion, we conclude that a jury could find that Barton

was experiencing a medical need so obvious that a layperson would recognize that

he needed prompt medical attention.

We reject Martin’s contention that Barton presented symptoms similar to the

detainee in Grayson v. Ross, a case in which we reversed the district court’s denial

of qualified immunity to the booking officer. 454 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2006). The

detainee in Grayson was under the influence of methamphetamine, but he sat calmly

and answered questions during booking, causing the booking officer to remark that

“the jail had booked detainees in worse condition.” Id. at 807. The officer thereafter

accompanied the detainee to a dressing room, where the detainee complied with

instructions to change into a prison uniform. We concluded that “[c]onfronted with

a calm, non-combative person sitting on a bench answering questions, a layperson

would not leap to the conclusion that Grayson needed medical attention, even if he

were aware that Grayson had taken methamphetamine.” Id. at 810. In contrast to the

situation in Grayson, Martin was confronted with a confused, noticeably intoxicated

person who was unable to stand and who could not answer simple questions,

including those about his medical needs. The facts here are more analogous to

Thompson v. King, in which we affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to the

booking officer who was presented with a detainee “who passed out in the booking

-7-

area, nearly fell out of his seat, was unable to sign his name, and . . . ‘couldn’t even

answer questions that [the booking officer] was asking him.’” 730 F.3d at 749.

Martin next argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that she

knew that Barton needed medical care and nonetheless disregarded his serious

medical need. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Barton, a jury could

infer Martin’s knowledge by Barton’s evident need for prompt medical attention and

Martin’s obviously inadequate response to that need. See Barton I, 820 F.3d at 965

(explaining that a defendant’s mental state can be inferred from evidence “that

demonstrate[s] that a medical need was obvious and that the [official’s] response was

‘obviously inadequate’” (quoting Thompson, 730 F.3d at 747)). Martin saw Barton

collapse and observed that he did not understand Owens’s instructions. Despite

knowing that Barton had been in a car accident, that he had symptoms of severe

intoxication, and that he could not answer her questions about his medical needs,

Martin did not conduct the healthcare screening that the County’s policies require and

which would have revealed significant bruising on Barton’s back and legs. A jury

also could consider evidence that Martin did not follow the County’s policies when

she decided to accept the obviously intoxicated Barton into the detention center

without medical approval and without attempting to refer him to the detoxification

unit. The circumstances presented to Martin thus are distinguishable from those

presented to the booking officer in Grayson, because the detainee there had no

obvious injuries and his “behavior at the time of the intake did not suggest a high

degree of intoxication.” 454 F.3d at 810.

We also reject Martin’s contention that it was not clearly established on

September 12, 2011, that booking Barton into jail would constitute deliberate

indifference to Barton’s serious medical needs. We have held that “a reasonable

officer in 2011 would have recognized that failing to seek medical care for an

intoxicated arrestee who exhibits symptoms substantially more severe than ordinary

intoxication violates the arrestee’s constitutional rights, all the more so when the

-8-

surrounding circumstances indicate that a medical emergency exists.” Barton I, 820

F.3d at 967 (citing Thompson, 730 F.3d at 747-49).

B. George Wright

Regina Barton claims that Wright failed to adequately train or supervise

Martin, thereby causing the deprivation of Barton’s right to due process. A

supervisor may be held liable if the “failure to properly supervise and train the

offending employee caused a deprivation of constitutional rights.” Tlamka v. Serrell,

244 F.3d 628, 635 (8th Cir. 2001) (quoting Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1078

(8th Cir. 1996)). The plaintiff must show that the supervisor was “deliberately

indifferent to or tacitly authorized the offending acts,” which requires evidence that

“the supervisor had notice that the training procedures and supervision were

inadequate and likely to result in a constitutional violation.” Id. (quoting Andrews,

98 F.3d at 1078).

The record is devoid of any evidence establishing that Wright knew that Martin

was inadequately trained or supervised. Regina Barton’s brief asserts that “Martin

has been involved in several lawsuits, the majority of which involve allegations of

denial of medical care,” but she cited no evidence to support that assertion.

Appellee’s Br. 39. While Martin testified that she had been sued by four plaintiffs,

there is no indication that the claims against her involved the denial of medical care.

Moreover, there is no evidence regarding the nature of Martin’s alleged acts or

omissions, when those acts or omissions occurred, or when the plaintiffs filed suit.

In the absence of such evidence, the mere assertion of prior suits does not support an

inference that Wright had notice on September 12, 2011, that the County’s training

procedures and supervision were inadequate and likely to result in constitutional

violations.

-9-

III. Arkansas Civil Rights Act

Martin and Wright argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on the

state-law claim. Arkansas has adopted the federal deliberate-indifference standard

as that which is to be applied to claims brought by pretrial detainees under the

Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Grayson v. Ross, 253 S.W.3d 428, 433 (Ark. 2007).

Accordingly, for the same reasons set forth above, Wright is entitled to summary

judgment and Martin is not.

Conclusion

We affirm the denial of qualified immunity as to Martin. We reverse the denial

of qualified immunity as to Wright. Because our resolution of the qualified immunity

issues does not necessarily resolve the question whether the County maintained an

unconstitutional custom, we do not have pendent appellate jurisdiction over the

County’s appeal. See Lockridge v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark., 315 F.3d 1005, 1012

(8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The County’s appeal is dismissed.

______________________________

-10-