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 procedural and legal rulings relevant to this

appeal. We repeat them here only as necessary. We fully addressed every issue

arising under the United States Constitution and redressable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Using the same factual assertions, however, plaintiff Grayson, on behalf of her

deceased spouse Daniel, a pretrial detainee, also advanced a claimed violation of the

Constitution of the State of Arkansas, redressable 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 Supreme 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 greater protection to pre-trial

detainees than the federal deliberate indifference standard.

In answering our certified question, the Arkansas Supreme Court distinguished

Grayson's facts–particularly that Daniel was a pretrial detainee with unmet serious

personal health needs–from both Shepherd and Williams v. Arkansas Department of

Correction, 207 S.W.3d 519 (Ark.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 647 (2005), which also

referenced the conscious-indifference 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 federal

circuit courts of appeal have used the deliberateindifference standard to analyze 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. 

______________________________