IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40096

Summary Calendar

ELVA FLORES, as Next Friend for Rosa Flores; ROSA FLORES,

Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

MICHAEL JARAMILLO, in his individual capacity; RICHARD MILLER;

ALBERT MARTINEZ,

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:08-CV-98

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Rosa Flores filed suit against three law enforcement officers, alleging they

committed constitutional violations resulting in an infringement of civil rights.

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of

the officers, holding them protected from suit by qualified immunity. On appeal,

Flores argues there was evidence meriting jury consideration. We AFFIRM.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 9, 2010

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-40096 Document: 00511197619 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2010
No. 10-40096

The evidence shows that during the execution of a search warrant in Alice,

Texas, Flores complained of or exhibited some health problems. She alleges that

the officers denied her requests for access to her anti-anxiety medication. About

twenty minutes into the search, officers summoned emergency medical services

(EMS) to treat Flores. EMS responded, treated Flores, and left the scene.

Shortly after EMS left, officers called EMS again. EMS responded again, and

this time transported Flores to the hospital. At some point, Flores had cardiac

arrest and lapsed into a coma. She remains in a coma as of this appeal.

Based on these events, Flores filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the

Southern District of Texas, alleging that the Defendants displayed deliberate

indifference by delaying access to medical care in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Defendants Jaramillo and Martinez are officers with the Alice

Police Department, and Defendant Miller is a deputy in the Jim Wells County

Sheriff’s Department. The district court found the officers subject to qualified

immunity and granted summary judgment in their favor.

We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo and apply

the same standards as the district court. Hill v. Carroll County, Miss., 587 F.3d

230, 233 (5th Cir. 2009). Summary judgment is appropriate where the record

shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(2). In

this determination, we view the disputed facts and inferences in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party. Hill, 587 F.3d at 233.

To determine whether a government official is entitled to qualified

immunity, we conduct a two-step analysis. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201

(2001), overruled in part by Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 818 (2009).

There is no qualified immunity where (1) the defendant violated the plaintiff’s

constitutional rights, and (2) the defendant’s action was “objectively

unreasonable in light of clearly established law at the time of the conduct in

2

Case: 10-40096 Document: 00511197619 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2010
No. 10-40096

question.” Freeman v. Gore, 483 F.3d 404, 410-11 (5th Cir. 2007) (citation

omitted). We examine the conduct from “the viewpoint of a reasonable official

in light of the information then available to the defendant and the law that was

clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.” Id. at 411.

The officers do not dispute that Flores should be considered a pretrial

detainee at the time of the events in question. The Fourteenth Amendment

provides that government officials may not disregard the “basic human needs”

of pretrial detainees, which include medical care. Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.,

74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). An official violates this clearly

established right if actions are taken with deliberate indifference to the

detainee’s serious medical needs. Id. at 647-48. Deliberate indifference is shown

where the official “knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate’s

health or safety.” Gibbs v. Grimmette, 254 F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 2001).

Mere negligence is not sufficient to show deliberate indifference to medical

needs. Id. “Rather, the plaintiff must show that the officials refused to treat

him, ignored his complaints, intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged

in any similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any

serious medical needs.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 239 F.3d 752, 756

(5th Cir. 2001) (citation and quotation marks omitted). A delay in treatment is

a constitutional violation only where “there has been deliberate indifference

[that] results in substantial harm.” Easter v. Powell, 467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir.

2006) (citation and quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).

We cannot conclude that the officers had subjective knowledge that Flores

was in serious medical danger and that they deliberately disregarded that

danger. The officers denied Flores access to medication during the execution of

the warrant, but they also summoned emergency medical personnel once they

were actually aware of the seriousness of her condition. Though the officers’

course of action may even have been negligent, it certainly does not evince a

3

Case: 10-40096 Document: 00511197619 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/09/2010
No. 10-40096

“wanton disregard for any serious medical needs.” Domino, 239 F.3d at 756.

Once emergency medical personnel arrived, Flores does not allege that the

officers interfered with her treatment in any way.

Flores alleges an approximately twenty-minute delay between when she

first complained of health problems and when EMS was called. While a delay

in treatment may support a finding of deliberate indifference, Flores has offered

no evidence from which we can infer that the delay in treatment attributable to

the officers caused substantial harm. See Easter, 467 F.3d at 463. A doctor who

treated Flores testified that a stressful event could cause heart palpitations and

cardiac arrest, and that a drug such as the one Flores was prescribed may reduce

such stress in about fifteen to thirty minutes. However, he was not able to

testify as to whether the delay itself caused Flores any harm.

Flores has not shown a violation of a clearly established right, and our

qualified immunity analysis ends there. The officers are immune from suit.

AFFIRMED.

4

Case: 10-40096 Document: 00511197619 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/09/2010