Baldwin v. Harris County Sheriff Department et al, No. 4:2016cv02966 - Document 111 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Signed by Judge Keith P Ellison) Parties notified.(arrivera, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Baldwin v. Harris County Sheriff Department et al Doc. 111 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION EBONI NICOLE BALDWIN, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § § § § August 15, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk Civil Action No. 4:16-CV-02966 MEMORANDUM & ORDER At a hearing on June 27, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on Defendant Latoisha Dorsey’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Summary Judgment. At the hearing, the Court denied the motion, because the Court found that a genuine issue of material fact remained as to the availability of qualified immunity. Defendant subsequently appealed the Court’s denial of qualified immunity. (Doc. No. 101.) At the request of both parties, the Court now reduces to writing the genuine issues of material fact effecting its oral denial of summary judgement. See Silverthorne v. Laird, 460 F.2d 1175, 1178-79 (5th Cir. 1972); 16A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3949.1 (4th ed. 2019) (noting that, after a notice of appeal is filed, a district court “may reduce to writing an earlier oral decision” so as long as it does “not alter the substance of the decision”). I. BACKGROUND On consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the Court construes all contested factual issues in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Bourne v. Gunnels, 921 F.3d 484, 492 Dockets.Justia.com (5th Cir. 2019). For the purpose of deciding the motion for summary judgment, the Court finds that the facts, construed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, are as follows. Plaintiff is a combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Doc. No. 97-18.) Late in the evening on September 26, 2014, Plaintiff took Ambien prescribed to her to treat her diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). (Doc. No. 97-2 at 6.) Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff left her house in her car, attempting to reach the hospital. (Doc. No. 97-1 at 74.)1 Plaintiff felt calm and alert when she got into the car. (Doc. No. 97-1 at 74.) However, at some point, Plaintiff became unable to operate her vehicle. (Doc. No. 97-1 at 74.) A bystander found Plaintiff sitting in her car, stopped at a red light. (Doc. No. 97-3.) The bystander attempted to communicate with Plaintiff, but found that she was incoherent. (Doc. No. 97-3.) The bystander later stated that Plaintiff “was not asleep, but was not responsive to [his] questions to her.” (Doc. No. 97-3.) The bystander called an ambulance. (Doc. No. 97-3.) Plaintiff told the emergency medical technician (“EMT”) that she had PTSD and had taken four Ambien. (Doc. No. 97-4.) The EMT noticed two more pills, later identified as Ambien, in Plaintiff’s hand, and an opened water bottle in her lap. (Doc. No. 97-2; Doc. No. 97-4.) The EMT wanted to take Plaintiff directly to the hospital. (Doc. No. 97-4.) On summary judgment, only “factual allegations set forth in a verified complaint may be treated the same as when they are contained in an affidavit.” Hart v. Hairston, 343 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2003). The operative Second Amended Complaint was signed, but not sworn. (Doc. No. 16 at 9.) Although the First Amended Complaint was sworn to in the presence of a notary, it was superseded by the Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 4.) See King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, the Court may not consider the factual allegations in the complaints as summary judgment evidence. 1 2 When Defendant arrived on the scene, Plaintiff was still experiencing intermittent unconsciousness. (Doc. No. 97-2 at 6.) Defendant and other deputies removed Plaintiff from her car, handcuffed her, and pushed her into the back of a patrol car. (Doc. No. 97-6 at 0:53-0:56.) Deputies then proceeded to search Plaintiff’s vehicle, which clearly displayed a disabled placard in the front window. (Doc. No. 97-6 at 1:05-1:22.) In a video recorded by Defendant’s dash cam ledge of Substantial Risk of Serious Harm The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly recognized that psychological conditions can pose a substantial risk of serious harm. A serious medical need may exist for psychological or psychiatric treatment, just as it may exist for physical ills. A psychological or psychiatric condition can be as serious as any physical pathology or injury, especially when it results in suicidal tendencies. And just as a failure to act to save a detainee from suffering from gangrene might violate the duty to provide reasonable medical care absent an intervening legitimate government objective, failure to take any steps to save a suicidal detainee from injuring himself may also constitute a due process violation . . . . Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of Houston, 791 F.2d 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986); see also Arenas v. Calhoun, 922 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 2019) (“Suicide is an objectively serious harm implicating the state's duty to provide adequate medical care.” (citing Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 644 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc))); Rhyne v. Henderson Cty., 973 F.2d 386, 391 (5th Cir. 9 1992) (“The failure to provide pre-trial detainees with adequate protection from their known suicidal impulses is actionable under § 1983 as a violation of the detainee’s constitutional rights.”). Because the Court must draw all inferences in Plaintiff’s favor, the Court finds that she has shown that Defendant had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm. Here, the parties offer “competing versions of what occurred,” and there is no video evidence to “resolve the dispute,” so the Court must proceed on the assumption that Plaintiff did in fact tell Defendant that she was suicidal, suffering from PTSD, and required medical assistance during the ride to Intox. See Bourne v. Gunnels, 921 F.3d 484, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2019); Grogan v. Kumar, 873 F.3d 273, 279 (5th Cir. 2017). Additionally, a disabled placard was clearly visible in the front window of Plaintiff’s car, facing Defendant’s cruiser while the scene was processed. (Doc. No. 97-6 at 1:05-1:22.) Defendant was told by the EMT that Plaintiff had prescription pills in her hand and an open water bottle between her legs, and Defendant observed that Plaintiff was already disoriented and only semi-conscious. (Doc. No. 97-2; Doc. No. 97-3; Doc. No. 97-4.) Further, Defendant had previously taken classes in Suicide Prevention, Inmates with Mental Illness, and Crisis Intervention Training. (Doc. No. 97-23 at 6-7.) These facts could suggest that Plaintiff was either on the brink of a suicide attempt via prescription overdose or had already overdosed on sleeping pills. “A reasonable jury could infer that, as an officer trained in the assessment of suicide risk and screening for mental health issues of inmates . . . , [Defendant] appreciated that [Plaintiff] presented a significant risk of suicide.” Hyatt, 843 F.3d at 178-79. The Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant was subjectively aware of Plaintiff’s substantial risk of serious harm. 10 2. Failure to Take Reasonable Measures to Abate Risk Plaintiff was arrested just before 1 AM. (Doc. No. 97-10 at 4.) Taking as true Plaintiff’s assertion that she told Defendant she was suicidal during the ride to Intox, Defendant became aware of the risk of suicide around 1:35 AM. (Doc. No. 97-10 at 4.) By this point, Defendant was also aware that Plaintiff had ingested four sleeping pills. (Doc. No. 97-2 at 6.) It is undisputed that Defendant did not take Plaintiff to the hospital until around 5:00 AM, when she was directed to do so by the jail’s nurse and staff doctor. (Doc. No. 97-2 at 6; Doc. No. 97-10 at 5.) Between 1:35 and 5:00 AM, Plaintiff was left alone in a jail cell at Intox for approximately two hours before being seen by the nurse for her blood draw. (Doc. No. 97-5 at 138; Doc. No. 97-10 at 5.) That nurse was not advised that Plaintiff was feeling suicidal, or that she had ingested four sleeping pills. (Doc. No. 97-5 at 144.) A medical professional was told of Plaintiff’s suicidal thoughts only upon her booking at the jail, sometime after 4:21 AM. (Doc. No. 97-2 at 6; Doc. No. 97-10 at 5.) Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that it was unreasonable for Defendant to take no action for almost three hours after learning of Plaintiff’s suicidal ideations and possible overdose just hours earlier. Defendant “refused to treat [Plaintiff], and ignored h[er] complaints.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Brown v. Strain, 663 F.3d 245, 250-51 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[Defendant] gives no persuasive reason why Plaintiffs’ allegations that he was aware that Brown had overdosed on cocaine and needed immediate medical treatment are legally insufficient to either support their claim or defeat his qualified immunity defense, which are analyzed under the same deliberate indifference standard.”); Rhyne, 973 F.2d at 391 (“The failure to provide pre-trial detainees with adequate protection from their known suicidal impulses is actionable under § 1983 as a violation of the detainee’s constitutional rights.”); Partridge, 791 F.2d at 1187 (5th Cir. 1986) (“[F]ailure to 11 take any steps to save a suicidal detainee from injuring himself may also constitute a due process violation . . .”). Because a reasonable jury could find that Defendant was subjectively aware of a substantial risk of serious harm to Plaintiff, and failed to take reasonable measures to abate that risk, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim should survive summary judgment. B. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY 1. Violation of a Constitutional Right As described above, the Court concludes that a reasonable jury could find that Defendant acted with deliberate indifference in violation of due process. 2. Defendant’s Conduct was Objectively Unreasonable in Light of Clearly Established Law The Fifth Circuit has consistently held that “the law is clearly established that jailers must take measures to prevent inmate suicides once they know of the suicide risk . . .” Hyatt, 843 F.3d 172, 177-78 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Hare v. City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320, 328-29 (5th Cir. 1998)); see also Flores v. Cty. of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736, 738 (5th Cir. 1997) (“A detainee's right to adequate protection from known suicidal tendencies was clearly established when Flores committed suicide in January 1990.”). Here, the question is whether, assuming that Defendant learned of Plaintiff’s suicidal ideations around 1:35 AM, Defendant had fair notice that she was required to take measures to address Plaintiff’s expressed suicidal thoughts sometime sooner than three hours later. The Court finds that she did. The cases cited in the above section finding that Defendant’s actions were unreasonable are all from before Plaintiff’s arrest in 2014. See Brown, 663 F.3d at 250-51 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[Defendant] gives no persuasive reason why Plaintiffs’ allegations that he was aware that 12 Brown had overdosed on cocaine and needed immediate medical treatment are legally insufficient to either support their claim or defeat his qualified immunity defense, which are analyzed under the same deliberate indifference standard.”); Domino, 239 F.3d at 756 (5th Cir. 2001); Rhyne, 973 F.2d at 391 (5th Cir. 1992) (“The failure to provide pre-trial detainees with adequate protection from their known suicidal impulses is actionable under § 1983 as a violation of the detainee’s constitutional rights.”); Partridge, 791 F.2d at 1187 (5th Cir. 1986) (“[F]ailure to take any steps to save a suicidal detainee from injuring himself may also constitute a due process violation . . .”). Although the Fifth Circuit has noted that the law is not clearly established regarding what measures must be taken once officials know of a suicide risk, Defendant took no measures to address Plaintiff’s risk of suicide or provide her medical treatment after Plaintiff told Defendant she was experiencing suicidal ideations, asked to be taken to a hospital, and admitted that she had consumed four sleeping pills (with more in her hand apparently about to be ingested). See Hare v. City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320, 328-29 (5th Cir. 1998) (“[W]hile we conclude that the law is clearly established that jailers must take measures to prevent inmate suicides once they know of the suicide risk, we cannot say that the law is clearly established with any clarity as to what those measures must be.”). Instead, with the knowledge of Plaintiff’s recent overdose, Defendant left Plaintiff mostly unattended in the backseat of the cruiser while Plaintiff’s car was searched, from approximately 12:55 AM to 1:30 AM. (Doc. No. 97-6; Doc. No. 97-8; Doc. No. 97-10.) Then, with knowledge of both the overdose and Plaintiff’s communicated suicidal thoughts, Defendant left Plaintiff in a holding cell at Intox for about two hours before she was seen by a medical professional for her blood draw. (Doc. No. 97-5 at 138; Doc. No. 97-10.) Defendant did not tell the nurse taking Plaintiff’s blood about Plaintiff’s suicidal thoughts or about the overdose. (Doc. No. 97-5 at 138, 144.) Accepting Plaintiff’s evidence that she told Defendant about her suicidal 13 ideations and need for medical attention around 1:35 AM, the Court finds that Defendant’s total failure for three hours to take any measures to address Plaintiff’s risk of suicide is a violation of clearly established law. Ultimately this case will boil down to whether a jury believes Plaintiff’s or Defendant’s testimony about what was said in the cruiser on the way to Intox. If, as Defendant has stated, Plaintiff made only one report of suicidal ideations, shortly after which Defendant transported her to the hospital as directed by a jail physician, then Defendant’s conduct may well have been objectively reasonable. However, on a motion for summary judgment, the Court may not weigh credibility, but must view the facts in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.” (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). On those facts, Defendant would not be entitled to qualified immunity. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated on the record, and set forth more fully above, the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 14th day of August, 2019. HON. KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
