Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02375/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02375-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2375

___________

Twylla Mae Turney, *

*

 Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Russell Waterbury, individually and *

in his official capacity as Bennett *

County Sheriff; Bruce McMillin, *

individually and in his official capacity *

as Bennett County Deputy Sheriff; *

Tracy Merchen, individually and in her *

capacity as an employee of Bennett *

County; Bennett County Sheriff’s *

Department; Bennett County, *

South Dakota, *

*

 Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2004

 Filed: July 19, 2004

___________

Before MURPHY, HEANEY, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

___________

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

Twylla Mae Turney brought this civil rights suit against the Bennett County

Sheriff’s Department, Bennett County, the State of South Dakota, Bennett County

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
-2-

Sheriff Russell Waterbury, Chief Deputy Bruce McMillin, and jailer Tracy Merchen

(collectively the Defendants) to recover damages related to the in-custody suicide of

her son, Bill Keith Turney. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on the

basis of qualified immunity. The district court granted the motion, and Turney

appealed. We reverse the grant of summary judgment as to Waterbury, and affirm in

all other respects.

BACKGROUND

In October of 2001, Bill Turney was arrested on an outstanding warrant. When

he was brought in to the Bennett County jail, he became violent and threatening. Due

to Turney’s behavior, Sheriff Waterbury decided to transfer Turney to the Pennington

County jail.

On October 20, 2001, while Turney was held at the Pennington County jail, he

informed one of the officers at the jail that “he was going to hang it up.” (Appellant’s

App. at 75.) Shortly thereafter, officers rushed to Turney’s cell at the behest of

another inmate to find Turney with a bed sheet tied around his neck. Turney tried to

fight off the officers when they tried to help him, so they sprayed Turney with pepper

spray. The officers were then able to cut the sheet away from Turney’s neck, and

placed Turney on a suicide watch for the remainder of his stay at Pennington County

jail.

Turney was transferred back to the Bennett County jail on October 23, 2001

in order to attend an October 24th hearing for his pending criminal proceedings.

Turney’s lawyer had apparently reached a plea agreement in which Turney would

serve 15 years for his criminal offenses. Turney did not want to return to prison;

according to various sources, it was widely known that Turney had provided

information regarding a prison killing, and there was a legitimate chance of retaliation

if he were to go back. Bennett County Deputy Sheriff Shannon Butler picked up

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
-3-

Turney for the trip back to the Bennett County jail. He was informed by Pennington

County jail staff that Turney had tried to hang himself on October 20th and that it

took several people to restrain him. Butler, escorted by a South Dakota Highway

Patrol officer, drove Turney back to Bennett County without incident. When they

arrived in town, Sheriff Waterbury assisted in bringing Turney into the Bennett

County jail. Butler told Waterbury that Turney had tried to kill himself in the

Pennington County jail and had violently resisted attempts to stop him. Butler also

told Waterbury that on the drive Turney had said something to the effect that if he

received more than a 15 year sentence he would die and take someone with him.

Waterbury made no attempt to follow up with Pennington County to get additional

details about Turney’s suicide attempt.

When Waterbury brought Turney into the Bennett County jail, Tracy Merchen

was on duty as the only jailer and dispatcher. Typically, jailers have incoming

inmates complete an intake form when they arrive; one of the questions on the form

inquires as to whether the inmate has ever tried suicide, and if so, where. Turney did

not complete the intake form because Waterbury brought Turney directly to a cell.

Turney was held in a cell by himself in an area that could be double locked, rather

than with the general population of the jail. Waterbury contends he put Turney in a

cell alone because he was afraid Turney may hold someone hostage. Waterbury

stayed at the jail for some time, and left after helping to serve dinner to the inmates.

Before leaving, Waterbury told Merchen that she should keep an eye on

Turney, and perform ten-minute checks on him. Waterbury never told Merchen that

Turney had tried to kill himself just three days earlier at the Pennington County jail.

In her deposition, Merchen said she did not know that Turney was a suicide risk, but

assumed from Waterbury’s instructions that he was on a suicide watch. Waterbury

advised Merchen that under no circumstances was she to enter Turney’s cell without

the company of a deputy.

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
-4-

Bruce McMillin was the Chief Deputy Sheriff of Bennett County, and was the

only deputy on duty in Bennett County on the night of October 23rd. Waterbury

claims that he specifically told McMillin to pay close attention to Turney that night,

but McMillin testified that he was never so instructed. According to McMillin, he did

not know that Turney had tried to kill himself in Pennington County, that Waterbury

had placed Turney on a ten-minute watch, or that Waterbury had ordered Merchen not

to enter Turney’s cell unaccompanied. McMillin checked in at the jail around 4:00

p.m., asked Merchen if there were any problems, stayed for a short while, and then

left.

At about 6:30 p.m., Turney asked Merchen if he could make a phone call. She

went back to his cell and told Turney that she had to call McMillin back to the jail

before he could make his call. In her deposition, Merchen recalled that she did not

see a bed sheet at this time, but did not think it unusual because inmates often leave

their bedding out of view, folded up toward the top of their bunks. Merchen then

called McMillin, who responded that he was on his way back from his residence and

would come to the jail. Within a few minutes, Merchen went to tell Turney that she

had asked McMillin to come in, and found Turney hanging with a bed sheet tied

around his neck, suspended from the bars which made up the cell’s ceiling.

Under orders not to enter Turney’s cell for any reason, Merchen did not try to

open Turney’s cell and cut him loose. Instead, she went back to her dispatch post and

radioed McMillin again. She told him to come in right away because Turney was

hanging himself. Merchen then called Waterbury at his home, which was a short

distance from the jail. Waterbury was lying down at the time, so his wife answered

the phone and took a message for him to call the office immediately. When he did

call, Merchen told him to come in right away because Turney was trying to hang

himself. Waterbury went quickly to the jail and saw Turney in his cell hanging.

Armed with a cutting tool, he entered the cell to get Turney down. He could not

reach Turney from the floor so he crawled on to the top bunk and cut the bed sheet

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
-5-

from Turney’s neck. Turney dropped to the floor, and Waterbury removed the rest

of the bed sheet from Turney’s neck. An ambulance arrived, and Turney was rushed

to the Bennett County Hospital emergency room. Attempts to revive Turney were

unsuccessful, and he was pronounced dead at 7:55 p.m.

Twylla Turney, Bill Turney’s mother, brought suit on behalf of Bill’s estate

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Sheriff Waterbury, Chief Deputy McMillin, Tracy

Merchen, the Bennett County Sheriff’s Department, Bennett County, and South

Dakota. The Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified

immunity. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Waterbury,

McMillin, and Merchen because it found they were not deliberately indifferent to

Turney’s suicide risk. It granted summary judgment in favor of the sheriff’s

department, county, and state because Turney had failed to show that Bennett County

had notice that its training was inadequate and may result in the deprivation of a

person’s constitutional rights. This appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Yellow

Horse v. Pennington County, 225 F.3d 923, 926 (8th Cir. 2000). “Summary judgment

is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “‘Whether a

given set of facts entitles the official to summary judgment on qualified immunity

grounds is a question of law. But if there is a genuine dispute concerning predicate

facts material to the qualified immunity issue, there can be no summary judgment.’”

Olson v. Bloomberg, 339 F.3d 730, 735 (8th Cir. 2003) (quoting Greiner v. City of

Champlin, 27 F.3d 1346, 1352 (8th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted in Olson)).

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 5 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
-6-

I. INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY OF WATERBURY, MCMILLIN, AND

MERCHEN

An official is entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified

immunity unless the plaintiff establishes that the official’s conduct violated the

plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights. Coleman v. Parkman, 349 F.3d

534, 537-38 (8th Cir. 2003). The violation cannot be established merely by the

deprivation of a constitutional right; the plaintiff must also show that the official

knew such action amounted to a constitutional violation. Yellow Horse, 225 F.3d at

927. To prove such knowledge in the prisoner-suicide context, the plaintiff must

show that the official was deliberately indifferent to a known risk of suicide. Id.; see

also Coleman, 349 F.3d at 538 (“The Eighth Amendment prohibits officials from

acting with deliberate indifference toward an inmate’s substantial suicide risk, and

the Fourteenth Amendment extends at least as much protection to pre-trial detainees

. . . .” (citation omitted)). The parties here agree that Turney enjoyed a clearly

established constitutional right to be protected from the risk of suicide. The question,

then, is whether Waterbury, McMillin, or Merchen knew of and were deliberately

indifferent to that risk. Coleman, 349 F.3d at 538 (“Once an official knows of a risk,

the Eighth Amendment requires the official take reasonable measures to abate the

risk.”).

We first address this question for Sheriff Waterbury, viewing the evidence in

the light most favorable to Turney. Waterbury personally knew Turney was volatile;

in fact, the record shows Turney was initially transferred from the Bennett County jail

to the Pennington County jail because he was a difficult inmate. When Turney was

returned to Bennett County, Waterbury was told that Turney had tried to kill himself.

It is undisputed that Waterbury knew Turney tried to kill himself in Pennington

County’s custody. Still, Waterbury did nothing to follow up with Pennington County

about the details of Turney’s attempted suicide. Had he done so, Waterbury would

have found out that Turney used a bed sheet in his cell to try to hang himself just

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 6 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
1

Presumably if McMillin were at the jail when Turney hung himself, he and

Merchen could have provided immediate assistance.

-7-

three days earlier. Instead, Waterbury brought Turney to a cell, which was doublelocked behind two sets of doors, contained a bed sheet and exposed ceiling bars, and

ordered Turney to be left there alone. 

Turney’s claim against Waterbury is strengthened by evidence of Waterbury’s

conduct toward Merchen and McMillin. Instead of allowing Merchen to fill out an

intake form for Turney (a form which included questions about past suicide attempts),

Waterbury brought Turney directly to his cell. He then ordered Merchen not to enter

the cell alone under any circumstances. Although he told Merchen to keep Turney

under a close watch, this order provided no protection to Turney since Merchen could

not actually enter Turney’s cell in the event of an emergency. Waterbury claims that

he told McMillin to keep a close eye on Turney,1

 but McMillin testified that this

conversation never happened. In short, Waterbury’s response to Turney’s known

suicide risk, which included not investigating the earlier attempt, not permitting

Merchen to complete Turney’s intake form, placing Turney in a cell alone with a bed

sheet and exposed ceiling bars, and ordering Merchen not to enter Turney’s cell

without backup–yet leaving her as the only official at the jail–are facts which exhibit

deliberate indifference.” We thus reverse the district court’s grant of qualified

immunity as to Waterbury.

The issue of whether McMillin was properly held qualifiedly immune presents

a closer case. He was the only deputy on duty on October 23rd, making him the only

other official available to help Merchen with Turney, in light of Waterbury’s orders.

If McMillin knew that Waterbury forbade Merchen from entering the cell alone, we

may consider it deliberately indifferent for McMillin to leave the jail except for

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 7 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
2

According to the plaintiff, McMillin was tending to his farm during the time

of the hanging.

-8-

official business.2

 That is not the case, however. McMillin said that Waterbury did

not give him any special instructions about Turney. On the other hand, Waterbury

claims he specifically told McMillin to keep a close eye on Turney. Even accepting

Waterbury’s assertion for the purposes of this appeal, we fail to see how telling

McMillin to closely watch an inmate could alert McMillin that Turney was suicidal.

In the absence of evidence that McMillin knew Turney presented a suicide risk,

McMillin could not have acted with deliberate indifference toward that risk.

Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of

McMillin.

As to Merchen, Turney argues that her principal failing was not completing the

jail intake form, which is typically done when an inmate arrives. The intake form

includes specific “yes or no” questions related to an inmate’s health and welfare. The

final question inquires whether the inmate “ever tried suicide.” (Appellant’s App. at

79.) Following this question is a follow-up inquiry, which asks, “If yes, where at?”

(Id.). Merchen claims she did not fill out the form because Waterbury brought

Turney directly from the squad car to his cell and ordered Merchen not to enter

Turney’s cell alone. The evidence, though, indicates that Waterbury himself

remained at the jail for approximately one and one-half hours after bringing Turney

back to the Bennett County jail. Merchen could have filled out the intake form during

this time, and if she did, may have learned about Turney’s recent suicide attempt. In

her deposition, however, Merchen stated that even without the form she understood

that Turney was suicidal from Waterbury’s instructions to watch him. Perhaps

completing the intake form would have informed Merchen about the details of

Turney’s past attempt, alerted Merchen to the current threat, and led her to remove

Turney’s sheets or undertaken other measures to protect Turney. Obviously, any

outcome which would have saved Turney’s life begs the question of whether an

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 8 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
3

We note that Turney makes no argument that the county is deliberately

indifferent by thrusting known suicide risks like Turney into situations which increase

their chances of success, such as a single cell with exposed bars and bed sheets. 

-9-

official should be held responsible for failing to follow that path. Our courts have

determined that actors such as Merchen are immune from such liability except in

limited circumstances, and we cannot conclude that her failure to complete a jail

intake form exhibited deliberate indifference to Turney’s risk of suicide. We affirm

the district court as to Merchen.

II. ENTITY LIABILITY FOR THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, THE

COUNTY, AND THE STATE

“In a section 1983 action, a municipality may only be held liable for

constitutional violations which result from a policy or custom of the municipality.”

Yellow Horse, 225 F.3d at 928. A failure to properly train employees is one way in

which an entity can exhibit deliberate indifference toward the rights of others. Id.

Turney simply asserts that Bennett County does not train its officers well

enough in suicide screening and prevention. The county does, however, provide

manuals that inform officers how to recognize and respond to suicide risks.3

 We

agree with the district court that Turney has not met her burden in establishing that

the training provided to Bennett County officials was inadequate, or that its current

policies evinced a disregard for the constitutional rights of its jail inmates. We thus

affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the sheriff’s

department, county, and state.

CONCLUSION

The district court granted qualified immunity in this § 1983 case to the

Defendants, finding that Twylla Turney had not shown that the Defendants were

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 9 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333 
-10-

deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of her son Bill, a known suicide risk.

Viewing the facts in Turney’s favor, we reverse the district court’s grant of qualified

immunity to Waterbury, and affirm as to McMillin, Merchen, the sheriff’s

department, county, and state.

______________________________ 

Appellate Case: 03-2375 Page: 10 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789333