Amicus Curiae Brief — Lewis County, Kentucky, et al., Petitioners v. Julie Helphenstine, Administratrix of the Estate of Christopher Dale Helphenstine and Guardian of B. D. H., the Minor Son of Christopher Dale Helphenstine

Supreme Court briefOct 18, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 23-259

In the Supreme Court of the United States

LEWIS COUNTY, KENTUCKY, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

JULIE HELPHENSTINE, Administratrix of the Estate

of Christopher Dale Helphenstine and Guardian of

B.D.H., the minor son of Christopher Dale

Helphenstine,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

BRIEF OF SHELBY COUNTY SHERIFF’S

OFFICE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF

NEITHER PARTY

E. LEE WHITWELL

Counsel of Record

Chief Litigation Attorney

SHELBY COUNTY ATTORNEY’S

OFFICE

160 N. Main Street, Suite 950

Memphis, TN 38103

(901) 222-2100

lee.whitwell@shelbycountytn.gov

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.............................1

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................2

ARGUMENT ................................................................3

The Court Should Determine Whether

Kingsley Applies to Deliberate Indifference

Claims Because the Circuits are Split Both

Externally and Internally.................................3

Local Governments Cannot Properly

Evaluate Inmate Medical Care

Claims Due to the Lack of a Clear

Standard .................................................3

The Lack of Clarity in This Area of

Law Makes the Already Difficult Job

of Managing Jails and Prisons More

Difficult ...................................................8

CONCLUSION ............................................................9

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Bell v. Wolfish,

441 U.S. 520 (1979) ................................................. 8

Bowles v. Bourbon Cty.,

2021 WL 3028128 (6th Cir. July 19, 2021) ............ 6

Brawner v. Scott Cnty., Tennessee,

14 F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2021)................................ 6, 7

Brawner v. Scott Cnty., Tennessee,

18 F.4th 551 (6th Cir. 2021).................................... 8

Burwell v. Cty. of Lansing, Michigan,

7 F.4th 456 (6th Cir. 2021)...................................... 5

Gomez v. Cty. of Memphis, Tennessee,

No. 219CV02412JPMTMP, 2021 WL 1647923

(W.D. Tenn. Apr. 27, 2021) ............................. 3, 4, 5

Greene v. Crawford Cnty.,

22 F.4th 593 (6th Cir. 2022).................................... 7

Hale v. Boyle Cnty.,

No. 20-6195, 2021 WL 5370783

(6th Cir. Nov. 18, 2021) ........................................... 6

Hyman v. Lewis,

27 F.4th 1233 (6th Cir. 2022).................................. 7

Kingsley v. Hendrickson,

576 U.S. 389 (2015) ..................................... 2, 3, 5, 6

Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders,

615 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2010) ................................... 7

iii

Trozzi v. Lake Cnty., Ohio,

29 F.4th 745 (6th Cir. 2022).................................... 7

Turner v. Safley,

482 U.S. 78 (1987) ................................................... 8

Vittetoe v. Blount Cty., Tennessee,

861 F. App’x 843 (6th Cir. 2021) ............................. 5

Watkins v. Cty. of Battle Creek,

273 F.3d 682 (6th Cir. 2001) ................................... 4

STATUTES

42 U.S.C. § 1983 .......................................................... 4

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

Shelby County Government is a political

subdivision of the State of Tennessee. The Shelby

County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for and oversees

the Shelby County Criminal Justice Complex

(hereinafter “Shelby County Jail”). The Shelby County

Jail houses an average of 2,000 individuals each day.

Those held include both pretrial detainees awaiting

trial and convicted inmates who may be awaiting

transfer to a prison, or who are being housed in the

Jail briefly in order to participate in post-conviction or

other similar hearings in the County’s Criminal

Courts.

Shelby County Sheriff’s Office Corrections

Deputies supervise all individuals held in the Jail.

Although convicted inmates and pretrial detainees are

not housed in the same cells or pods 2, they can be

housed in adjacent pods. This means a supervising

deputy overseeing multiple pods on a given shift can

sometimes be responsible for the care and security of

both convicted inmates and pretrial detainees. Under

Helphenstine, such a deputy would be governed by a

different constitutional standard in responding to an

inmate in the convicted inmate pod than she would if

she encountered a pretrial detainee suffering from the

1 All parties were timely notified in accordance with Rule 37.2

and no counsel for any party authored this brief in whole or in

part, and no party or counsel for a party made a monetary

contribution intended to fund its preparation or submission.

2 A pod is a large, gymnasium-sized room of cells. Adjacent pods

are sometimes located next to each other and connected by a

shared hallway.

same medical distress a few feet away in the pretrial

detainee pod.

As such, Shelby County Government has a direct

interest in a uniform standard arising out of this

Court’s ruling in Kingsley, 3 and further, in this Court

settling the circuit split regarding whether this ruling

speaks to inmate health care deliberate indifference

claims.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Shelby County Sheriff’s Office does not argue to

the Court as to which way it should rule in the

Kingsley debate. Instead, this Amicus asserts only

that the Court should grant the Petition for Writ of

Certiorari in this case and definitively decide the

issue. The Shelby County Jail, like many jails and

prisons, is constantly bombarded with lawsuits

alleging mistreatment of inmates. The County does its

best to defend against these suits but must grapple

with a constantly changing legal framework. The

Court should rule on the matter and settle the issues

raised in Helphenstine.

3 Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389 (2015).

ARGUMENT

The Court Should Determine Whether

Kingsley

Applies

Deliberate

Indifference Claims Because the Circuits

are Split Both Externally and Internally.

There is a growing lack of clarity and

predictability in the Sixth Circuit when it comes to

inmate medical care claims. What exactly the

constitutional standard is changes from case to case,

often in split decisions. However, the Court has

declined requests to conduct en banc review. This

leaves parties on both sides of inmate medical care

cases stuck in a state of uncertainty, unable to value

cases when determining whether settlement or trial is

appropriate. This Court should take up this issue and

determine once and for all what the constitutional

standard in inmate medical care cases is.

A. Local Governments Cannot Properly

Evaluate Inmate Medical Care Claims

Due to the Lack of a Clear Standard.

The Sixth Circuit’s lack of consistency in this

area makes it more difficult to defend against such

lawsuits, or to properly value them for settlement. A

classic example is a recent lawsuit filed against Shelby

County, which is typical of the kinds of lawsuits

Shelby County encounters.

The lawsuit was Gomez v. City of Memphis,

Tennessee, No. 219CV02412JPMTMP, 2021 WL

1647923 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 27, 2021). Steven Gomez

was arrested and brought into the Shelby County Jail

on June 27, 2018. Unknown to Jail personnel, Gomez

had swallowed plastic bags of methamphetamine

during his arrest. He did not tell anyone when he came

into the Jail that he had ingested the deadly drug; and

neither did the City of Memphis police officers (not

employed by Shelby County) who arrested him and

brought him to the Jail. During his medical screening,

Gomez denied having taken drugs, and he did not

present with any symptoms of drug use. At some point

the following morning, he began to feel sick. He told

Jail personnel, who promptly took him to see a nurse.

Gomez was then immediately taken to the Regional

One hospital. He slipped into a coma at the hospital

and later died. Id. at *2-3.

Gomez’s estate filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against Shelby County, among other defendants. The

plaintiffs argued that the Jail should have taken more

steps to uncover Gomez’s drug ingestion, and that it

was irrelevant that Jail personnel had no subjective

knowledge of his concealed medical condition.

Under the law as it stood at the time, Shelby

County’s liability was plainly non-existent. The

standard at that time included a subjective knowledge

requirement on the part of Jail personnel, which the

Plaintiff could not show. It was “not enough that there

was a danger of which an officer should objectively

have been aware.” Watkins v. Cty. of Battle Creek, 273

F.3d 682, 686 (6th Cir. 2001). Instead, an official

needed actual knowledge of the serious risk to the

inmate. Thus, based on that law (among other issues),

the District Court granted summary judgment to the

County. Gomez, 2021 WL 1647923, at *15. And

although the Sixth Circuit would ultimately affirm

that ruling, the road was a winding one that

illustrates the need for this Court to grant the

Helphenstine petition.

The plaintiff in Gomez filed her appeal to the

Sixth Circuit on July 1, 2021. Between that date and

the Sixth Circuit’s ruling, the Sixth Circuit issued

multiple conflicting opinions on the application of

Kingsley to inmate medical care, often either

implicitly or explicitly overruling something another

panel had held previously on the matter.

At first, the Court refrained from ruling on the

issue as not properly before it. See Burwell v. Cty. of

Lansing, Michigan, 7 F.4th 456, 466 (6th Cir. 2021)

(“[W]e need not take a position here on whether

Kingsley extends to deliberate indifference claims. We

have historically declined to resolve this issue when,

as here, the plaintiff failed to argue it before the

district court . . . Thus, for now, we stick with the

conventional test.”); accord Vittetoe v. Blount Cty.,

Tennessee, 861 F. App’x 843 (6th Cir. 2021).

In other instances, the Court declined to wade

into the issue because the plaintiff could not prevail

under either the Farmer or the Kinsley standard,

obviating the need to decide between the two. See, e.g.,

Bowles v. Bourbon Cty., 2021 WL 3028128, at *8 (6th

Cir. July 19, 2021) (“Regardless of whether we analyze

Plaintiffs’

claims

under

the

objectiveunreasonableness standard . . . or under the more

stringent subjective deliberate-indifference standard,

Plaintiffs’ claims fail . . . Accordingly, we do not

contribute to the circuit split on the relevant test.”).

But then, on September 22, 2021, in a 2-1

decision, the Sixth Circuit delved into the Kingsley

question in Brawner v. Scott County, Tennessee, 14

F.4th 585 (6th Cir. 2021). 4 The Brawner Court stated

that Kingsley did extend beyond excessive force cases,

and applied to inmate medical care cases as well.

Thus, Brawner seemingly did away with the

subjective knowledge requirement.

However, Brawner was not the end of the

matter; it was only the beginning. Shortly after

Brawner, the Sixth Circuit issued its ruling in Hale v.

Boyle County, No. 20-6195, 2021 WL 5370783 (6th Cir.

Nov. 18, 2021), which ignored Brawner and seemingly

did not agree that Kingsley extended to anything other

than excessive force claims. 5

4 Like the Helphenstine case at hand, the Brawner defendants

petitioned the Sixth Circuit for en banc review, but the full panel

denied the petition. Brawner. Brawner v. Scott Cty., Tennessee,

18 F.4th 551 (6th Cir. 2021). Five judges dissented.

In Hale, the Court analyzed a sexual-abuse-by-prison-guard

claim and, in doing so, assessed whether the claim should be

analyzed under Kingsley. The Hale Court ruled that Kingsley

applied because the allegations in Hale were of excessive force:

“Kingsley’s objective test applies to Hale’s claims against [Officer]

Pennington. Both parties have framed Hale’s claim as an

excessive-force claim. That framing comports with how other

courts have treated similar claims.” Id. at *5. The Hale Court did

not address Brawner, but its assessment of whether Kingsley

applied hinged on whether the claim was an excessive force claim

or not. See id. (“[W]e conclude that Hale’s assertions against

Pennington are properly viewed as an excessive-force claim that

should be evaluated under Kingsley’s objective test.”). In other

words, if the jailer’s actions in Hale had not been in the nature

of excessive force, Kingsley would not have applied, because

Kingsley applies only to excessive force claims. This was

inconsistent with Brawner.

The Court reinforced its reliance on Brawner’s

objective standard in a few cases. See, e.g., Greene v.

Crawford County, 22 F.4th 593 (6th Cir. 2022); Hyman

v. Lewis, 27 F.4th 1233 (6th Cir. 2022). But that was

not the end of the matter.

In Trozzi v. Lake County, Ohio, 29 F.4th 745,

754 (6th Cir. 2022), the panel ruled that the new

Brawner test actually did “take[ ] account of a jail

official’s actual knowledge.” Trozzi did not last long.

About ten months later, another panel of the Sixth

Circuit ruled in the present case that Trozzi was

simply not good law. Helphenstine v. Lewis Cnty.,

Kentucky, 60 F.4th 305, 316 (6th Cir. 2023) (“Recently

. . . a panel of this court called this reading of Brawner

into question . . . We hold that [Trozzi’s] framing of the

elements is irreconcilable with Brawner.”). The Court

made no mention of the fact that, in the Sixth Circuit,

“one panel cannot overrule a pre-existing decision of

another panel . . . .” Spengler v. Worthington

Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481, 491 (6th Cir. 2010). Instead,

it simply overruled Trozzi.

Given this clear lack of consensus among the

various Sixth Circuit panels, the Helphenstine

Defendants filed a petition for en banc review. The full

Court denied the petition. Helphenstine v. Lewis Cnty.,

Kentucky, 65 F.4th 794, 795 (6th Cir. 2023). Judge

Readler issued a dissent. Among other points Judge

Readler makes, he urges this Court to take up and

resolve this issue one way or the other. Id. at 801 (“For

the sake of litigants and courts alike, the Supreme

Court should soon grant certiorari in a case involving

allegedly unconstitutional deliberate indifference

toward a pretrial detainee.”). The Court should take

up this case.

B. The Lack of Clarity in This Area of Law

Makes the Already Difficult Job of

Managing Jails and Prisons More

Difficult.

Courts have recognized the challenging

decisions inherent in the “unenviable task” of

operating corrections facilities, and that prison

officials “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in

the adoption and execution of policies and practices

that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal

order and discipline and to maintain institutional

security.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547 (1979).

“Running a prison is an inordinately difficult

undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and

the commitment of resources, all of which are

peculiarly within the province of the legislative and

executive branches of government.” Turner v. Safley,

482 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1987) (citation omitted).

But the current trend in the Sixth Circuit and

several other circuits is to restrict that deference more

and more, and to liken federal civil rights claims to

state tort claims. This trend increases the exposure of

local governments and local taxpayer dollars to

uncapped damages and shifting attorney’s fees. See

Brawner v. Scott Cnty., Tennessee, 18 F.4th 551, 557

(6th Cir. 2021) (Readler, J., dissenting from denial of

en banc review) (“And these cases have real world

consequences for those charged with the difficult task

of running our detention facilities. After all, one

cannot easily overstate the ‘Herculean obstacles’

prison

administrators

face

‘effective[ly]

discharg[ing] the[ir] duties.’ Yet how, as a

jurisprudential matter, have we rewarded those who

take up the ‘unenviable task’ of ensuring the safety

and rehabilitation of detainees? With the likelihood of

a summons and jury trial.”) (citations omitted).

COVID-19 and the labor shortages that

followed made this issue even more challenging.

Governmental entities like Shelby County found

themselves beset on all sides, defending lawsuits

against some plaintiffs who alleged that they were

taking too many precautions to protect against the

virus, and others who alleged they were not doing

enough.

And as the legal landscape continues to shift,

local governments find it more and more difficult to

sort which cases should be defended at trial and which

should be settled, or for how much, because the cases’

values could change at a moment’s notice with the

next 2-1 appellate decision. In the interest of providing

a consistent and predictable legal standard that local

governments can rely on in assessing these cases, the

Court should grant the Helphenstine petition.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Shelby County Sheriff’s

Office respectfully submits that the Petition for Writ

of Certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

E. Lee Whitwell