## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 04-3577

___________ Jerala Grayson, as personal * representative for the Estate of * Daniel Neal Grayson, * * Plaintiff/Appellant, * * v. * * Bob Ross, individually and in his * official capacity as a Crawford * County Sheriff, * * Defendant/Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Western John McAllister, individually and in his * District of Arkansas. official capacity as a Crawford County * Deputy; Chris Porter, individually and * in his official capacity as a Crawford * County Deputy, * * Defendants/Appellees, * * Roy Bass, individually and in his * official capacity as a Crawford County * Deputy, * * Defendant, * * Michael Sharum, individually, * * Defendant/Appellee. *

___________-2- Submitted: April 5, 2007 Filed: April 26, 2007

___________ Before RILEY, BEAM, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ BEAM, Circuit Judge. In our prior opinion in this case, Grayson v. Ross , 454 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2006), we summarized all facts and related proce dural and legal rulings relevant to this appeal. We repeat them here only as n ecessary. We fully ad dressed every issue arising under the United States Constitu tion and redressabl e under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Using the same factual assertions, however , plaintiff Grayson, on behalf of her deceased spouse Daniel, a pretri al detainee, also advanced a claimed violation of the Constitution of the State of Arkansas, redr essable under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993. Being uncertain of the standard of care to be applied under state law, we certified the following question to the Suprem e Court of Arkansas pursuant to section 2(D)(3) of Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution: Whether the conscious indifference standard announced by [the Arkansas Supreme Court] in Shepherd v. Washington County , 331 Ark. 480, 962 S.W.3d 779 (1998), affords gr eater protection to pre-trial detainees than the federal de liberate indifference standard. In answering our certified question, th e Arkansas Supreme Court distinguished Grayson's facts–particularly that Daniel was a pretrial detainee with unmet serious personal health needs–from both Shepherdand Williams v. Arkansas Department of Correction , 207 S.W.3d 519 (Ark.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 647 (2005), which also referenced the conscious-indifferen ce standard. The court concluded:1 The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. -3- We note again that the Eighth Circuit and other federalcircuit courts of appeal have used the deliberateindifference standard to anal yze this issue in connection with pretrial detainees. Though this court is not called upon to answer the question of what standard applies for pretrial detainees under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act as part of the certified question, we adopt deliberate indifference as the proper standard. Grayson v. Ross , No. 06-946, 2007 WL 766333, at *10 (Ark. Mar. 15, 2007). This answer resolves our uncertainty and dictates that we should affirm the district court. 1 "When applying a state's statute, we are bound to accept the construction placed on that statute by the state's highest court." Burlington N. R.R. Co., v. Kmezich , 48 F.3d 1047, 1049 (8th Cir. 1995) (citing R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul , 505 U.S. 377, 381 (1992)).Accordingly, we now affirm the district court's application of the deliberateindifference standard to Grayson's claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. See 454 F.3d at 811-12. We greatly appreciate the prompt assistance of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in this case.

______________________________