T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A p ril12,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
M A R I E G A ST O N , Sur vi vi ng Par ent and A dm i ni s t r atr i x of the Est at e of J eff r eyR ayB el den, Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. W AR REN PLOEGER ; GLEN LEI TC H ; STEV E R O BE RT S, in d iv id u a llya n d a s C o u n ty C o m m i s s i o n e r s o f

B r o w n C o u n ty, Ka n s a s ; LAM AR S HOEM AKER, i n d i v i d u a l l ya n d a s S h e r i ff o f Br o wn Cou n t y , Kan s a s ; BRETT HOLLI S TE R, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ants , and J O H N D O E S, unknow n and u n i d e n t i fi e d e mp l o y e e ( s ) o f Br o wn County , K a ns a s ; J A N E D O ES, un kn ow n an d u nident i fi ed em ploy ee(s ) of B row n C ou nty , K ansas, D efen dan t s. N o. 05- 3461 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 2 3 6 8 - D J W)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *- 2 -

B efor e KELLY , M c CO NNELL , and HO LM ES , C i rcui tJudg es. J eff r eyR ayB el den comm i t t ed s ui ci de on A ugus t14, 2002, w hi l e he w as in c a rc e ra ted in B ro w n C o u n ty , K a n sa s. T h e re a f ter , P lain tiff-A p p e llee M a rie G as t on br oughtt hi s l aw s ui ton hi s behal f as s er t i ng, i nt eral i a, a 42 U . S. C . § 1983 cl ai m t hat var i ou s B row n C ou ntyoffi ci al s w ere del i berat el yi nd i fferentt o the r i sk that M r. B elde n w o u ld co m m itsu ici d e. T h e d efen d an ts m o v ed fo r sum m ary j udgm enton t he bas i s of qual i fi ed i m m uni ty ; t he magi s tr at e j udge t o w hom t he case w as ass i gn ed g rant ed the m oti on w i th respectt o the § 19 83 cl ai m s agai nst C ount yC om m i s s i oner s W arr en Pl oeger , G l en Lei t ch, and St eve Rober t s but deni ed the mot i on w i t h r es pectt o the § 1983 cl ai m s agai ns tSher i ff Lam ar Shoem aker , Ser geantB r et tH ol l i s t er , and O ffi cerB r andon R obert s . E xer ci s i ng appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291, w e conc l ude thatt he evi dence cannotes t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ever s e and r emand.

B ackgr ound T h e q u e stio n ra ise d in th is a p p e a l is: “T a k e n in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to the p artyasse rt ing the injury , d o the fac ts al lege d sh o w that the [ d efen d an ts’ ] conductvi ol at ed a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght ?” Sauci erv. K at z, 533 U . S. 194, 201 ( 2001) . T hus , t he fa ct s r ecount ed bel ow ar e t aken f r om t he r ecor d and pr es ent ed in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to M s. G a sto n . S e e T h o m a s v . W ich ita C o c a -C o laT he magi s t r at e j udge r efe rr ed t o M s . R enz a s M r . B el den’ s fi ance é. T he 1 br i efs r efe rt o heras hi s gi r l fr i end. T he exa cts t atus of thei rr el at i ons hi p i s not m a ter ial to th is a p p e a l. - 3 - B o ttl in g C o ., 9 6 8 F .2 d 1 0 2 2 , 1 0 2 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (n o tin g th a t, w h e n fa c ts a re in dis pu t e, t he n on m ov i ng partym ayno tsi m plyres ton the p l eadings bu tm ust id e n tify“ su fficie n t ev id e n c e (p e rtin e n t to th e m a ter ial iss u e ) . . . b yre fe re n c e to an affid av it , a d ep o sit ion tr an script or a sp ec ifi c e x h ibitinco rpo rated there in”). I . M r . B el den’ s Sui ci de O n Ju n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 2 , M r. B e ld e n w a s in c a rc e ra ted in th e B ro w n C o u n tyJa il a w a itin g tr ia l o n a c h a rg e o f p o s s e s s io n o f

m e th a m p h e ta m in e w ith in te n t to s e ll. [I I A pl t . A pp. at335. ] Fort he fi r s ts i x w eeks of hi s i ncar cer at i on, M r . B el den w as a w ell -be h av ed inm ate. [Id. at 33 8 . ] T h en , o n o r ab o u t A u g u st 14 , M r. B elde n rec eive d a let ter fro m h is sign ifi ca n t o ther, Jen n ifer R en z. [Id . at 33 5 . ] 1 Ser geantH ol l i s t er , t he j ai l admi ni s tr at or , w as aw ar e thatM r . B el den had r ece i ved t hi s l et t er . [I A pl t . A pp. at99. ] H e al s o beca m e aw ar e thatM r . B el den had al t er ed hi s cel l w i ndow t o fac i l i t at e the r ece i ptof contr aband. [I I A pl t . A pp. at 335. ] B eca us e M r . B el den had t amper ed w i th the w i ndow , Ser geantH ol l i s t er d e c id e d to m o v e h im to a d iffe re n t c e ll. [ Id .] M r . B el den made i tcl eart o Ser geantH ol l i s t ert hathe di d notw antt o be m o v ed . F ir st, M r. B elde n co m p lai n ed ab o u t his ne w ce ll m ates. [A p lt . B r. at 5.] T hen, w hen Ser geantH ol l i s t erm oved M r . B el den t o a s i ngl e- per s on cel l , he compl ai ned thathi s new cel l di d nothave a w or ki ng t el evi s i on. [I d. at6. ] W hen- 4 -

Ser geantH ol l i s t err efus ed t o m ove M r . B el den fr om hi s t el evi s i on- l es s , s i ngl eper s on cel l , M r . B el den us ed a pi ece of frui tt o pl ug the t oi l et . [I I A pl t . A pp. at 3 3 6 .] S e rg e a n t H o llis te r t h e n m o v e d h im to a d iffe re n t s in g le -p e rs o n c e ll. [ Id .] A t4: 00 p. m . , O ffi cerR ober t s came on dut yand w as t ol d thatM r . B el den w as in a sin g le-pe rson ce ll fo r disciplinaryrea so n s. [Id . ] S h o rt lythere af ter, O fficer R o b erts be g an serv ing d inn er to the inm ates. A t abo u t 5:30 p . m . , M r. B e l d e n c a m e o u to f

h i s c e l l t o g e th i s d i n n e r , th r e w h i s i c e d t e a d o w n th e h a l l w a y, and r efus ed t o r etur n t o hi s cel l . [I d. ] O ffi cerR obert s w as the onl yoffi ceron du t yatt he jai l , so he sum m on ed B row n C ou ntyD epu tyD ou g B ram m er t o assi st h im in d e a lin g w ith M r. B e ld e n . [I d .] W h e n O ffice r R o b e rts a n d D e p u ty B ra m m e r t h re a te n e d M r. B e ld e n w ith p e p p e r s p ra y , h e w e n t b a c k in to h is c e ll. [ Id .] A t6: 40 p. m . , O ffi cerR ober t s conduct ed a r out i ne che ck of the ce l l s , and he not i ced thatM r . B el den had pl ace d paperoverhi s cel l w i ndow . [I d. ] A l though th e jail’s p ra c tice p e rm itt e d p riso n e rs to o b stru c t th e ir c e ll w in d o w tem p o ra rily (usu all yto affo rd th em p ri v ac yw h en u sing the to il et), O fficer R o b erts t o ld M r. B elde n to rem o v e the p ap er. [Id.] M r. B elde n ref u sed an d threa tene d to h arm O ffi cerR obert s i f he e nt er ed the ce l l . [I d. ] O ffi cerR obert s t es t i fi ed thathe co n side red this be h av ior t o b e o u t of ch ara cter fo r M r. B elde n . [Id . ] C oncerned aboutM r . B el den’ s i ns ubor di nat i on, O ffi cerR obert s t el ephoned S e rg e a n t H o lli ste r a t h o m e . [I d .] S e rg e a n t H o lli ste r in stru c ted O ffice r R o b e rts toP u rsu a n t to jail p ro c e d u re , if O ffice r R o b e rts d id c o n tac t d isp a tch to 2 re q u e s t a s s is ta n c e , h e s h o u ld h a v e re c o rd e d h is a c tio n in th e ja il lo g . [ Id .] - 5 - s um m on a deputyt o as s i s thi m , ent erM r . B el den’ s cel l t o r emove t he pape r , and m o v e M r. B e ld e n to C e ll 1 4 . [I d .] C e ll 1 4 is th e jail’s su icid e w a tch c e ll, b u t itis al s o us ed t o hous e i nm at es w ho need f r equentobs ervat i on forotherr eas ons , s uch as i nt oxi cat i on ori nj ur y . [I A pl t . A pp. at99. ] O ffi cerR obert s w as aw ar e that C el l 14 w as us ed as a s ui ci de w at ch ce l l and thatj ai l pr ocedur e di ct at ed that i nm at es i n C el l 14 w er e t o be obs erved more fr equent l ythan pr i s oner s i n ot her c e lls . [ II A p lt. A p p . a t 3 3 6 .] A ft ers peaki ng w i t h Ser geantH ol l i s t er , O ffi cerR obert s cl ai m s thathe i m m edi at el ycont act ed di s pat ch t o r eques tas s i s t ance , buthi s j ai l l og does not cont ai n a not at i on t hat he di d s o. [I d. at 337. ] D eputyB r amm ert es t i fi ed thathe 2 w as on dut yatt he t i m e and di d notr eca l l hear i ng thatO ffi cerR obert s had r eques t ed as s i s t ance . [I d. ] I n anycas e, O ffi cerR obert s s pentt he nexthour s upervi s i ng t he mal e i nm at es ’ r ecr eat i on per i od and one i nm at e’ s fami l yvi s i t . [I A p lt. A p p . at 1 2 0 .] D u rin g th is tim e , h e p a ss e d b yM r. B e ld e n ’s c e ll fre q u e n tly a n d s p o k e w ith h im o n s e v e ra l o c c a s io n s . [ Id .] A t a p p ro x im a te ly 7 :4 5 p .m ., O ffic e r R o b e rt s c o n d u c te d a n o th e r c e ll c h e c k . [I I A pl t . A pp. at337. ] M r . B el den’ s w i ndow w as s t i l l obs truct ed, and O ffi cer R ober t s agai n i ns t ruct ed hi m t o r emove t he pape r . [I d. ] M r . B el den r epl i ed, “F u ck o ff. ” [ Id.] A lth o u g h the o b stru cti o n h ad b ee n in p lace fo r ov er a n h o u r,- 6 -

O ffi cerR obert s di d notfol l ow up w i th di s pat ch t o i nqui r e aboutw hetherany offi cer s w er e comi ng t o as s i s thi m , and he di d nott el ephone Ser geantH ol l i s t er w i t h an updat e on M r . B el den’ s behavi or . [I d. at338. ] L i kew i s e, Ser geant H ol l i s t erdi d notphone O ffi cerR obert s t o det erm i ne w hetherhi s i ns truct i ons had b e e n fo llo w e d . [ Id .] Shor t l yaft er8: 00 p. m . , O ffi cerR obert s l eti nm at e A nthonyL aw s on outof hi s cel l t o do l aundry . [I A pl t . A pp. at122. ] Frus tr at ed thatno deputyhad y et a r r i v e d t o a s s i s th i m i n r e mo v i n g th e p a p e rf r o m Mr . Be l d e n ’ s c e l l wi n d o w, O ffi cerR obert s deci ded t o have M r . L aw s on as s i s thi m i n r emovi ng t he obs t ruct i on fr om M r . B el den’ s cel l w i ndow . [I d. at122- 24. ] M r . L aw s on w as an inm ate trustyw h o m O fficer R o b erts trusted , an d h e w as a lso f ri en d lyw ith M r. B e ld e n . [ Id . a t 1 2 4 .] W hen M r . L aw s on opened M r . B el den’ s cel l door , he found M r . B el den h a n g in g b ya sh e e t f

ro m th e d o o r h a n d le. [ Id .] O ffice r R o b e rts im m e d iate ly s um m oned an a m bul ance . [I d. ] D eputyB r amm er , w ho had bee n ups t ai r s i n the sh e riff ’s o ffice d o in g p a p e rw o rk fo r a p p ro x im a telyfif tee n m in u tes , h e a rd th e c a ll an d w en t do w n to the jai l t o assist O fficer R o b erts. [Id . ] H e e sti m ated that M r. B el den had be en dea d forabouthal f an hourw hen he a rr i ved on the s cene at8: 18 p .m . [ II A p lt. A p p . a t 2 8 6 .] A ft ert he s ui ci de, M r . B el den’ s form ercel l m at es i nform ed j ai l s t aff thathe h a d sp o k e n o f

su icid e o n se v e ra l o c c a sio n s. [ Id . at 3 3 5 .] In th e d a y s le a d in g u p to- 7 -

hi s death, M r . B el den had gi ven aw ayhi s food, r ocked ba ck and for th on hi s bed forext ended pe r i ods of t i m e, and t i ed hi s s hoel ace s t ogethert o s ee w hetherthey w oul d s uppor thi s bodyw ei ght . [I d. ] A ppar ent l y , M r . B el den’ s fel l ow i nm at es b e liev e d th a t th is b e h a v io r w a s s im p lya n e ffo rt to g e t atte n tio n . In a n yc a se , itis u n d ispu ted th at th eyd id n o t r ep o rttheir ob serv ati o n s to a n y o n e in th e jail b efo re M r. B e ld e n c o m m itte d s u ic id e . [ Id .] I I . T r ai ni ng and Supervi s i on B ot h Sher i ff Shoemakerand Ser geantH ol l i s t erhave unde r gone s ui ci de pr event i on t r ai ni ng, w hi ch has t aughtthem, among ot herthi ngs , how t o i dent i fy i nm at es w i t h s ui ci dal t endenc i es . [I d. ; s ee a l s o A pl ee. B r . at48 ( l i s t i ng the n u m e ro u s tra in in g p ro g ra m s S h e riff S h o e m a k e r h a s a tten d e d ).] A c c o rd in g to S erg ea n t H o ll ist er, his training taug h t him that a su d d en ch an g e in a n inm ate’s b eh av ior ca n ind icate an incre ase d ri sk o f su ici d e. [II A p lt . A p p . at 33 6 . ] H o w ev er, he co n side red an inm ate c o v ering h is cell w ind o w to b e a d isci p li n ary i s s ue r athert han a s ui ci de w arni ng s i gn. [I A pl t . A pp. at96. ] Sher i ff Shoemaker c o n c u rr e d . [ Id . a t 1 4 1 .] A tt he t i m e of M r . B el den’ s s ui ci de, O ffi cerR obert s had notr ece i ved any form al s ui ci de pr event i on t r ai ni ng des pi t e havi ng w or ked as a corr ect i ons offi cer fo r th e B row n C o u n tyS h eriff ’s D ep artm en t fo r eigh teen m o n ths. [Id. at 11 1 -13 . ] G ener al l y , B r ow n C ount yJ ai l offi cer s ar e offer ed the oppor tuni tyt o att end a corr ect i ons cl as s t hati ncl udes a s ui ci de pr event i on componentaft ertheyhave- 8 -

been e m pl oy ed fora y ear . [I d. at148. ] H ow ever , O ffi cerR obert s t es t i fi ed thathe had onl yr ece i ved on- t he-j ob t r ai ni ng t hr ough hi s i nt er act i ons w i th fel l ow offi cer s . [I d. at112- 13. ] H e knew thatdepr es s i on w as a s ui ci de w arni ng s i gn, and he t es t i fi ed thathe r el i ed on hi s comm on s ens e i n det ect i ng and pr event i ng s u ic id e a tte m p ts . [ Id . a t 1 1 3 .] I I I . B r ow n C ount yJ ai l Pol i ci es and Pr ocedur es As n o t e d , j a i l o ffi c i a l s g e n e r a l l ya l l o w i n ma t e s t o c o v e rth e i rc e l l wi n d o ws fo r sh o rt p e rio d s o f

tim e . [S e e A p lt. B r. at 1 9 .] H o w e v e r, O ffice r R o b e rts under s t ood t hati tw as i m por t antforcorr ect i onal offi cer s t o have a n unobs truct ed vi ew of the i ns i de of the ce l l s i n or dert o m oni t orthe i nm at es and make s ur e they di d notharm t hemsel ves orot her s . [I A pl t . A pp. at120- 21. ] I f an i nm at e r efus ed to rem o v e a w ind o w co v ering , jai l po li cyd ict ated that the c o rrecti o n al office rs s houl d for ci bl yr emove i t . [I d. ; s ee a l s o i d. at96; i d. at141. ] T he pol i cy m an d ated that at l ea st tw o o fficers w o u ld en ter a ce ll to reso lve d isci p li n ary is s u e s s u c h a s a n in m a te ’s fa ilu re to re m o v e a n o b s tru c tio n f ro m th e c e ll w in d o w . [ Id . at 9 6 .] N e v e rth e les s, th e p o licyre c o g n ize d th a t itw a s o f ten im p ra c tica l to e n ter a c e ll i m m e d iate ly , an d S h e riff S h o e m a k e r te stified th a t if a n o ffice r is bus y , ot heri nm at es ar e outof thei rcel l s , and the off i ceri s w ai t i ng foras s i s t ance , i tw oul d notbe unr eas onabl e fora w i ndow t o r emai n cover ed foras l ong as i tw as co v ere d in this ca se. [II A p lt . A p p . at 33 8 . ] T he j ai l al s o had pr ocedur es fordeal i ng w i th know n s ui ci de r i s ks . [I d. atN ot abl y , w hen M r . B el den arr i ved att he hos pi t al , t he emer gencyr oom 3 p h y s ic ia n w a s to ld th a t h e h a d b e e n p la c e d o n h a lf-h o u r c e ll c h e c k . [ Id . a t 3 3 8 .] A s w i l l be di s cus s ed, i nfr a, O ffi cerR obert s di d notpr oper l yappea l t he 4 d e n ial o f

th e su m m a ryju d g m e n t m o tio n , so w e c a n n o t co n sid e r w h e th e r h e is e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i fi e d i m m u n i t y. - 9 - 339. ] I f an i nm at e demonstr at ed anyi ndi cat i on of an i nt ent i on t o harm hi m s el f, offi cer s w oul d i m m edi at el ys um m on K anza M ent al H eal th t o the j ai l , and K anza w oul d eval uat e the i nm at e. [I d. ] D ependi ng on t he s peci fi c ci r cumst ance s of the c a se , th e in m a te c o u ld b e se g re g a ted a n d m o n ito re d . [ Id .] A s m e n tio n e d , C e ll 3 1 4 w a s u s e d a s a s u ic id e w a tc h c e ll a t th e B ro w n C o u n ty Ja il. [ Id . a t 3 3 7 .] IV . P roc ed u ral H ist o ry M s . G as t on br oughtt hi s l aw s ui tas t he s ur vi vorof M r . B el den and a s t he admi ni s t r atr i x of hi s es t at e, al l egi ng cl ai m s pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . § 1983 and K ans as s t at e t ortl aw . A ft ert he part i es cons ent ed t o the exe r ci s e of j ur i s di ct i on bya U ni t ed St at es M agi s t r at e J udge, t he defendant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent o n the b asis o f q u ali fied im m u n ity . T h e m ag istrate jud g e g ran ted s u m m ary j udgm entt o t he C ount yC om m i s s i oner s and t o Sher i ff Shoemakeri n hi s offi ci al capa ci t yon M s . G as t on’ s § 1983 cl ai m butdeni ed them sum m aryj udgm enton t he s t at e l aw cl ai m s . H e furt herdeni ed s um m aryj udgm enton al l cl ai m s t o Sher i ff S h o e m a k e r i n h is in d iv id u a l c a p a c ity, S e rg e a n t H o llis te r, a n d O ffic e r R o b e rt s . S h e riff S h o e m a k e r a n d S e rg e a n t H o lli ste r filed a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l. 4- 10 - D i s cus s i on T hi s appea l chal l enges t he deni al of a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entbas ed on qual i fi ed i m m uni t y . W hen a de fenda nthas as s er t ed qual i fi ed i m m uni ty , the bur den s hi ft s t o t he pl ai nt i ff t o es t abl i s h: ( 1) thatthe defendantvi ol at ed the pl ai nt i ff’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ght , and ( 2) that , atthe t i m e of the i nci dent , i tw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed thatt he defendant ’ s conductamount ed t o a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. Sauci er , 533 U . S. at201; C or t ez v. M cC aul ey , 478 F. 3d 1108, 1114 (10t h C i r. 20 07 ) ( en b anc). T he co urtm ustview the ev i den ce i n the l i gh tm ost fa v o rab le t o the p lai n ti ff an d d raw all rea so n ab le i n fe ren ce s in the p lai n ti ff ’s fa v o r. S ee F u ersc h b ac h v . S w . A ir li n es C o . , 4 3 9 F . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 7 (10 th C ir . 2006) . I tt hen makes t w o l egal det erm i nat i ons : ( 1) w hetherthe fa ct s s t at e a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, and ( 2) w hetheri tw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed thatthe defe ndant ’ s conduct ed vi ol at ed the cons t i tut i onal r i ght . See B l os s om v. Y arb rou g h , 4 2 9 F . 3 d 9 6 3 , 9 6 6 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H e re , the a p p e llan ts c o n c e d e th a t a ja iler v io late s th e F o u rte e n th A m endmenti f he i s del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o a know n r i s k thata pr e- tr i al det ai nee w i l l comm i ts ui ci de, s ee A pl t . B r . at23- 24 ( ci t i ng B arr i e v. G r and C ount y , 119 F. 3d 862, 866 ( 10t h C i r . 1997) , and Fr ohm aderv. W ayne, 958 F. 2d 1 0 2 4 , 1 0 2 8 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 )), an d theyd o n o t cha ll en g e the d istri ct co u rt ’s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e la w w a s c le a rl ye s ta b lis h e d a t th e tim e o f M r. B e ld e n ’s d e a th . H ow ever , t heycont end thatt he fa ct s of thi s cas e, even w hen vi ew ed i n the l i ght- 11 -

m os tfavor abl e t o M s . G as t on, fai l t o es t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. I d. at 27, 30. W e r evi ew t hi s l egal ques t i on de novo. B l os s om , 429 F. 3d at967. I . J ur i s di ct i on A tt he out s et , w e musteval uat e M s . G as t on’ s cont ent i on t hatw e l ack ju risd ictio n to h e a r th is a p p e a l. “G e n e ra lly , [th e ] d e n ial o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t is noti m m edi at el yappea l abl e. ” I d. at966. A s M s . G as t on conce des , the deni al of q u a lifie d im m u n ity“ is s u bjec t to im m e d iate a p p e a l w h e n th e d e fe n d a n t is a p u b lic o ffic ia l a s s e rt in g q u a lifie d im m u n ity a n d th e is s u e a p p e a le d is o n e o f la w .” Id .; see also M arti n ez v . C arr, — F . 3 d

— , 2 0 0 7 W L 9 0 1 9 2 2 , at *2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); A pl ee. B r . at1. She ar gues , how ever , thatthi s cas e i s not“pr operas an i nt er l ocut or yappea l s i nce A ppel l ant s have notpos tur ed the i s s ue( s ) of appe al as b a s e d o n q u a l i fi e d i mm u n i t y . ” I d . I n o th e rwo r d s , s h e a s k s u s t o h o l d th a twe lack juri sd ict ion b ec au se th e w o rds “ q u ali fied im m u n ity ” d o n o t app ea r an yw h ere i n t he tw o i s s ues pr es ent ed forr evi ew i n the appe l l ant s ’ br i ef. I d. at2. M s . G as t on does notpoi ntt o a s i ngl e ca s e r equi r i ng appel l ant s t o us e the w or ds “qual i fi ed i m m uni t y ” i n t hei rs t at ementof the i s s ues . M or eover , the appel l ant s ’ s t at ementof the i s s ues ( nott o m ent i on t hei rbr i ef a s a w hol e) m akes cl eart hatt heyar e pr es s i ng a l egal ques t i on r el at ed t o the deni al of qual i fi ed im m u n ity . A d d it ion all y , their no ti ce o f a p p ea l spe cifica ll ystat es th at th eyare appea l i ng “a M emora ndum and O r derdeny i ng [thei r ] cl ai m s forqual i fi ed i mm u n i t y. . . . ” R. Do c . 4 2 a t1 . T h e a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d th a t , a s a ma t t e ro f l a w,- 12 -

t he fa ct s i n t he r ecor d do notes t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on; i f thi s i s true, th e ya re n e c e s s a ri ly en title d to q u a lifie d im m u n ity. S e e S a u c ie r, 5 3 3 U .S . a t 2 0 1 . W i t houtdoubt , t hen, t hi s appea l r ai s es a l egal ques t i on r el at ed t o the deni al of qual i fi ed i m m uni t y , and w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. See M it ch ell v . F o rsyth, 47 2 U . S . 5 1 1 , 5 3 0 (19 8 5 ). I I . O ffi cerR ober t s ’ s A t t empt ed A ppeal H avi ng hel d t hatw e have j ur i s di ct i on overthe appe al , w e mustnow det erm i ne w hetherO ffi cerB r andon R obert s i s r i ght l ybefor e us . T he not i ce of app eal , t i m el yfi l ed o n D ecem ber 1, 20 05 , reads as fol l ow s: N ot i ce i s her ebygi ven thatD efe ndant s W arr en Pl oeger , G l en Lei t ch, S t eve R ob ert s, C ou ntyC om m i ssi on ers of B row n C ou nty , K ansas, L amarShoem akerand B r ettH ol l i s t er( “D efe ndant s ”) , i n the above r efe r ence d m att er , her ebyappea l t o the U ni t ed St at es C our tof A ppeal s fort he Tent h C i r cui tfr om a M emora ndum and O r der d e n y in g D e fe n d a n ts’ c laim s fo r q u a lifie d im m u n itye n ter e d in th is act i on on t he 17th dayof N ovember , 2005. R . D oc. 42 at1. O ffi cerB r andon R obert s ’ s name does notappea ratal l i n the t extort he ca pt i on of the not i ce of appea l . See i d. Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 3( c) ( 1) ( A ) , a not i ce of appea l m us t“s peci fyt he par t yorpar t i es t aki ng t he appe al bynami ng eac h one i n the capt i on orbodyof th e n o tice . . . . ” In T o rre s v . O a k lan d S c a v e n g e r C o ., th e S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t “[ t]h e fa ilu re to n a m e a p a rtyin th e n o tice o f a p p e a l is m o re th a n e x c u sa b le

‘ i nform al i t y ’ ; i tcons t i tut es a fa i l ur e of thatpartyt o appea l . ” 487 U . S. 312, 314 (19 8 8 ). F o ll o w ing T o rres, the F ed era l R u les o f A p p ell ate P roc ed u re w ere- 13 -

amended t o m ake c l eart hat“[a ] n appea l m us tnotbe di s m i s s ed fori nform al i tyof fo rm o r titl e o f

th e n o tice o f

a p p e a l, or fo r fa ilu re to n a m e a p a rtyw h o se in ten t to ap p ea l i s o therw ise clea r fro m the n o ti ce . ” F ed . R . A p p . P . 3 (c)(4). M o reo v er, t he amended R ul e perm i t s “an a t t or neyr epr es ent i ng m or e than one pa r ty[t o] des cr i be thos e part i es w i t h s uch t erm s as ‘ al l pl ai nt i ffs , ’ ‘ the defendant s , ’ ‘ the p lai n ti ffs A , B , et al. , ’ or ‘all d efen d an ts ex ce p t X . ’” Id . R . 3 (c)(1)(A ). I n l i ghtof thes e cha nges , the di s pos i t i ve ques t i on i s w hetherthe not i ce of appea l has pr ovi ded fa i rnot i ce of the part i es thati nt end t o appea l the l ow er cour t ’ s deci s i on. See D odger ’ s B ar& G r i l l , I nc. v. J ohns on C ountyB d. of C ount yC om m ’ r s , 32 F. 3d 1436, 1440- 41 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . W e have hel d thatt he j u r i s d i c t i o n a l n a tu r e o f R u l e 3 ( c ) p r e v e n t s u s f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g a n a p p e a l b y a par t yw hos e i nt entt o appea l i s notcl earfr om the not i ce e ven w hen the omi s s i on of the part yi s i nadvert entand the oppos i ng partyhas s uffe r ed no pr ej udi ce. See T w entyM i l e J oi ntV entur e, PN D , L t d. v. C om m ’ rof I nt ernal R evenue , 200 F. 3d 1268, 1274 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . A ccor di ngl y , w e have concl uded thatthe omi s s i on of one pa r t yw her e other s ar e ment i oned byname i s i ns uffi ci entt o i ndi cat e that t he omi t t ed part yi nt ended t o appea l . See i d. at1273- 74. H er e, bot h t he ca pt i on and the bodyof the not i ce l i s t ed fi ve of the or i gi nal s i x defe ndant s byname. N ot hi ng i n the not i ce e ven s ugges t ed thatO ffi cer R ob ert s i ntended t o ap peal the d enial of sum m aryj ud gm ent. In these c irc u m sta n c e s, w e h a v e little d ifficu ltyc o n c lu d in g th a t th e n o tice o f a p p e a l d idO f c o u rse , O ffice r R o b e rts m a ya g a in a ss e rt q u a lifie d im m u n itylate r in 5 th e p ro c e e d in g s. S e e L a n g ley v. A d a m s C o u n ty , 9 8 7 F .2 d 1 4 7 3 , 1 4 8 1 n .3 (1 0 th C i r . 1993) . N ot hi ng w e s ayher e i s m eantt o i ndi cat e anyopi ni on aboutw hether O ffi c e rR o b e r t s i s e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i fi e d i m m u n i ty. - 14 - n o tp r o v i d e fa i rn o t i c e t h a tOffi c e rRo b e r t s i n t e n d e d t o a p p e a l . T h e r e fo r e , we lack juri sd ict ion to co n side r w h ethe r O fficer R o b erts w as e n ti tl ed to su m m ary j udgm ent . See i d.

5 III. Q u a lifie d Im m u n ity A lth o u g h “ n e ith e r p riso n o fficia ls n o r m u n icip a lit ies c a n a b so lu tely guar ant ee the s afe t yof thei rpr i s oner s [, t ] heyar e, . . . r es pons i bl e fort aki ng r eas onabl e meas ur es t o [e] ns ur e the s afe tyof i nm at es . ” Lopez v. L eM as t er , 172 F. 3d 756, 759 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . A ccor di ngl y , a j ai l er vi ol at es t he Ei ght h A m endmenti f he s how s del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a convi ct ed i nm at e’ s s er i ous m edi cal needs . E s t el l e v. G ambl e, 429 U . S. 97, 104 ( 1976) ; s ee a lso F a rm e r v . B re n n a n , 5 1 1 U .S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 4 (1 9 9 4 ). “U n d e r th e F o u rte e n th Ame n d me n t ’ s d u e p r o c e s s c l a u s e , p r e tr i a l d e t a i n e e s . . . a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e s a me degr ee of

pr ot ect i on r egar di ng m edi cal att ent i on as t hataffor ded convi ct ed i nm at es und er the E i gh t h A m end m ent. ” F rohm ader, 95 8 F . 2d at10 28 ; see al so B ell v . W o lfi sh , 4 4 1 U . S . 5 2 0 , 5 3 5 n . 1 6 (19 7 9 ). C l ai m s ar i s i ng fr om a fa i l ur e t o pr eventpr i s oners ui ci de “a r e cons i der ed an d tr ea ted a s claim s b ase d o n the fail u re o f jail o ffici als t o p rov ide m ed ical care fort hos e i n t hei rcus t ody . ” B arr i e, 119 F. 3d at866. T hus , a pl ai nt i ff br i ngi ng- 15 -

s uch a c l ai m m us tpr ove thathi s j ai l erw as “del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o a s u b s ta n tia l r is k o f

s u ic id e .” Id . a t 8 6 9 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). “D el i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence has obj ect i ve and s ubj ect i ve component s . ” C al l ahan v. Poppel l , 471 F. 3d 1155, 1159 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . T he obj ect i ve componentof the t es ti s m eti f the harm s uffe r ed w as s uffi ci ent l ys er i ous . I d. O bvi ous l y , s ui ci de sati sfies th is r eq u ir em en t. S ee C o ll ins v . S ee m an , 4 6 2 F . 3 d 7 5 7 , 7 6 0 (7th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (“[I]t go es w ith o u t say ing that su ici d e is a se ri o u s h arm . ”). T he s ubj ect i ve componentof the t es tr equi r es a s how i ng thatthe defendant ac ted w ith a c u lpab le st ate o f m ind . In F arm er v . B ren n an , the S u p rem e C o u rt obs erved thatt he r equi r ed mens r ea l i es “s om ew her e betw een the pol es of negl i gence atone end a nd purpos e orknow l edge a tthe other. . . . ” 511 U . S. at 83 6. T he C ou rtt hen held that “a pri son o ffi ci al cann ot be fou nd l i able . . . un l ess t h e o ffi c i a l k n o w s o f

a n d d i s r e g a r d s a n e x c e s s i v e r i s k t o i n m a t e h e a l th o rs a fe ty; t h e o ffi c i a l mu s tb o t h b e a wa r e o f fa c t s f r o m w h i c h th e i n fe r e n c e c o u l d b e d r a wn t hata s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm exi s t s , and he mustal s o dr aw the i nfer ence . ” I d. at837. T he C ou rtm ade cleart hat the d efen dan t ’s kn ow l edg e of a subst anti al ri sk m aybe pr oven byci r cumst ant i al evi dence , i ncl udi ng evi dence “thatthe r i s k w as obvi ous . ” I d. at842. H ow ever , the thr es hol d forobvi ous nes s i s veryhi gh. See, e .g ., P e re z v . O a k la n d C o u n ty, 4 6 6 F .3 d 4 1 6 , 4 3 5 -3 6 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( G ri ffin , J ., co n cu rri n g ) (“A d m ittedly , itm ayh av e b ee n u n w ise t o cre d itP ere z’s- 16 -

c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f

h is s tate o f

m in d a n d h is e x p lan a tio n fo r d isc o n tin u in g h is m e d ic a tio n , p a rt ic u la rl yin lig h t o f h is h is to ry a n d h is u n m e d ic a te d s ta te its e lf. . .

. [H ow ever , i ] f one fai l s t o per cei ve a s tr ong l i kel i hood, one ca nnotthen be del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o i t . ”) ; C ol l i ns , 462 F. 3d at761 ( “[A ] r eques tt o s ee a c risis c o u n se lo r . . . is n o t su fficie n t to p u t a d e fe n d a n t o n n o tice th a t an in m a te p o ses a su b stan ti al an d im m inen t r isk o f su ici d e.”). A . Ser geantH ol l i s t er T h e m ag istrate jud g e d en ied S erg ea n t H o ll ist er’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm entbeca us e “the evi dence pr es ent ed r ai s es a genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t re g a rd in g w h e th e r P la in tiff c a n e s ta b lis h . . . (1 ) w h e th e r D e fe n d a n t H o llis te r . . . had know l edge of

t he s peci fi c r i s k thatB el den w oul d at t empt t o comm i ts ui ci de; or( 2) w hethert he evi dence demonstr at es thatthe r i s k of B el den comm i t t i ng s ui ci de w as s o s ubs t ant i al orpervas i ve thatknow l edge by[Ser geantH ol l i s t er ] can be i nferr ed. ” I I A pl t . A pp. at346. H e cont ends thatthe evi dence i n the r ecor d, vi ew ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o M s . G as t on, cannotes t abl i s h thathe w as del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o t he r i s k thatM r . B el den w oul d ki l l hi m s el f. W e agr ee. T he magi s t r at e j udge r el i ed on the fol l ow i ng evi dence i n r eac hi ng the co n clus ion that S erg ea n t H o ll ist er w as n o t entit led to q u ali fied im m u n ity : ( 1 ) M r. B el den’ s cel l m at es obs erved s ui ci dal behavi orand hea r d hi m di s cus s i ng s ui ci de; (2) M r. B elde n w as n o t a discip li n aryp rob lem u n ti l th e d ayo f h is de ath; (3) M r. B el den r ece i ved a l ett erfr om M s . R enz on the dayof hi s death and Ser geant- 17 -

H ol l i s t erw as aw ar e of the r ece i ptand cont ent s of the l et t er ; ( 4) Ser geantH ol l i s t er h ad tr ainin g in d etec ti n g su ici d al i n m ates; (5) S erg ea n t H o ll ist er p lace d M r. B e ld e n in a sin g le- p e rso n c e ll; (6 ) M r. B e ld e n p lu g g e d th e to ilet in h is n e w c e ll; ( 7) O ffi cerR obert s t ol d Ser geantH ol l i s t eraboutM r . B el den’ s cont i nued i ns ubor di nat i on betw een 4: 00 and 6: 40 p. m . ; ( 8) Ser geantH ol l i s t eri ns truct ed O ffi cerR obert s t o r emove t he pape rfr om M r . B el den’ s cel l w i ndow and tr ans fer hi m t o C el l 14; ( 9) C el l 14 w as t he s ui ci de w at ch ce l l ; and ( 10) Ser geantH ol l i s t er n e v e r fo llo w e d -u p w ith O ffic e r R o b e rt s to c h e c k o n th e s itu a tio n w ith M r. B e ld e n . I d. at346- 49. M uch of thi s evi dence has no bear i ng on w hetherSer geantH ol l i s t erknew that M r. B elde n w as su ici d al. F o r ex am p le, the m ag istrate jud g e n o ted th at th ere w as no evi dence t hatSer geantH ol l i s t erw as aw ar e of the s ui ci dal behavi or obs erved byM r . B el den’ s cel l m at es . I ndeed, the i nm at es uni form l ys t at ed that t heyhad nott ol d anyj ai l offi ci al s aboutthei robs ervat i ons beca us e theydi d not bel i eve M r . B el den w as s ui ci dal . N everthel es s , the magi s tr at e j udge bel i eved that a ju ryc o u ld fin d th a t: [I]f th e jail ers h ad b ee n p rop erlym o n it o ri n g the in m ates, th e jail ers w oul d have he ar d B el den t al k abouts ui ci de, w oul d have obs erved B e ld e n g iv e a w a yh is fo o d , w o u ld h a v e w a tch e d B e ld e n re p e a ted ly r ock bac k and fort h on hi s bed, and w oul d have not i ced Bel den ty i ng h is s h o e lac e s to g e th e r to tes t th e a b ili tyo f th e sh o e lac e s to h o ld h is b o d yw e ig h t. I d. at350. T hi s i s har dl ya pr operi nfer ence t o be dr aw n fr om the evi dence- 18 -

beca us e i tpr es um es t hatj ai l er s have a cons t i tut i onal dutyt o m oni t ori nm at es c o n sta n tly . H o w e v e r, jaile rs a re n e ith e r o b lig a ted n o r a b le to w a tch e v e ryin m a te a t ev e rym in u te o f

e v e ryd a y . T h e re c o rd is c lea r th a t S e rg e a n t H o lli ste r a n d h is co ll ea g u es w ere n o t aw are o f th e stran g e b eh av ior d esc ri b ed b yM r. B elde n ’s cel l m at es . U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , w e w oul d notperm i ta j ur yt o i nferthat t hei rfai l ur e t o not i ce c ont r i but ed t o the “hi gherdegr ee of faul tthan negl i gence ” r equi r ed fordel i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence . B erryv. C i tyof M us kogee, 900 F. 2d 1489, 1 4 9 5 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ). W ith re sp e c t to th e lette r f ro m M s. R e n z , S e rg e a n t H o lli ste r te stified th a t: A . H e r ece i ved a l et t erthr ough the mai l . I thad bee n l ogged i n by t he jai l ers . Q . T hatl et t er , di d any one atthe j ai l l ook atthatbefor e theygave i tt o h i m? A . A ppar ent l ys o beca us e the otherday s hi ftj ai l erhad ment i oned itto m e tha t . . . [M s. R en z] w an ted to k n o w w h yh e w o u ldn ’t come t o t he w i ndow w hen s he honked. Q . D id y o u ev er o b serv e tha t l ett er? A . I do n ’trem em b er. I A pl t . A pp. at99; s ee a l s o I I A pl t . A pp. at269. T he l et t eri s noti n the r ecor d, and nothi ng i n t he r ecor d fur t heri l l um i nat es i t s cont ent s . N everthel es s , the m a g istra te ju d g e se e m in g lyp re su m e d th a t itw a s a “ D e a r Jo h n ” lette r. T h is is p u re sp e c u latio n th a t fin d s n o su p p o rt in th e re c o rd . A c c o rd in g to D e p u ty B ra m m e r, M s . R e n z a rr iv e d a t th e h o s p ita l s o o n a f te r M r. B e ld e n w a s ta k e n th e re .- 19 -

I I A pl t . A pp. at290. She t ol d t he emer gencyr oom phy s i ci an thats he had s poken w ith M r. B e ld e n th e d a yb e fo re a n d th a t “[ h ]e to ld h e r th a t h e lo v e d h e r b u t d id notm ake a nys ugges t i on t hathe mi ghtbe part i cul ar l ydepr es s ed ors ui ci dal . ” I d. at 32 0 . F rom this ev iden ce , a juryw o u ld h av e n o b asis fo r i n fe rri n g that there w as anyt hi ng ami s s i n M r . B el den’ s r el at i ons hi p w i th M s . R enz, l etal one thatt he defe ndant s w er e aw ar e of i tand del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o i t s effecton hi s m ent al s t at e. Ser geantH ol l i s t eradmi t t ed thatM r . B el den w as gener al l ya w el l - behave d i nm at e pr i ort o A ugus t14, 2002, and he a gr eed thata s udden s hi fti n behavi orcan be a ha rbi ngerof s ui ci de. I A pl t . A pp. at98. H ow ever , he t es t i fi ed unequi vocal l yt hatM r . B el den’ s behavi ordi d notdr amat i cal l ychange on the day he ende d hi s l i fe, and he vi ew ed M r . B el den’ s conductas a di s ci pl i naryi s s ue o n ly . Id. at 98 -99 , 1 0 6 . H e e x p lai n ed : “I didn ’tk n o w h e w as su ici d al. . . . [H ]e w a s ju st b e in g u n c o o p e ra tiv e b e c a u se h e d id n ’t w a n t to b e re m o v e d f ro m th a t ce ll b e c a u se I b e liev e th a t th a t [ sic ] w in d o w h a d b e e n a ltere d to g e t co n tra b a n d in to t he fa ci l i t y , s o he di dn’ tw antt o m ove bec aus e of pos s i bl ygett i ng contr aband. ” I d . a t1 0 6 . S e r g e a n tH o l l i s t e rf u r th e rt e s t i fi e d th a t , i n l i g h to f h i s d ru g h i s t o ry, M r . B el den coul d be expe ct ed t o be angryaboutbei ng m oved i nt o a ce l l i n w hi ch he w oul d notbe abl e t o r ece i ve contr aband. I d. St i l l , “[h] e w as n’ tthatups et w h e n I m o v e d h im . H e a rg u e d th e p o in t. H e s a id w e ll I d o n ’t w a n t to m o v e . . . . H e w as neveroutof contr ol . H e di d noty el l ors cr eam. ” I d.- 20 -

N ev erthe less, S erg ea n t H o ll ist er later ord ere d O fficer R o b erts t o m o v e M r. B e ld e n to C e ll 1 4 , the su icid e w a tch c e ll. Id . at 1 1 0 . H e a lso c h o se n o t to c a ll O fficer R o b erts t o v erifythat h is ord ers h ad b ee n ca rri ed o u t bec au se “ I did n ’t bel i eve ther e w oul d be a pr obl em w i th hi m l at er . I f he ha d a s econd j ai l eroran o ffi c e r[ wi t h Offi c e rRo b e r t s ] I d i d n ’ tfe e l th e r e wa s g o i n g t o b e a p r o b l e m. He had al r eadycompl i ed w hen tw o peopl e w er e ther e. ” I d. at103. C ertainly , a juryw o u ld b e e n ti tl ed to d isbe li ev e S erg ea n t H o ll ist er’s t es t i m ony . H ow ever , t he r i gor ous del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence s t andar d r equi r es know l edge thatan i nm at e i s s ui ci dal ora r i s k thati s s o obvi ous and s ubs t ant i al t hatknow l edge c an be i nferr ed. W e w oul d notperm i ta j ur yt o i nferknow l edge s i m pl yfr om t he fa ctt hatSer geantH ol l i s t eri ns truct ed O ffi cerR obert s t o m ove M r . B el den t o C el l 14 beca us e i ti s undi s put ed thatC el l 14 w as nots ol el yus ed as a su ici d e w atch ce ll . M o reo v er, th e re co rd c o n tai n s n o ev iden ce that M r. B el den’ s behavi orw as unus ual foran i nm at e, es peci al l yan i nm at e w ho had bee n d e p riv e d o f

h is a c c e ss to c o n tra b a n d a n d m o v e d to a n iso late d c e ll w ith o u t a w o rk in g tele v isio n . S e rg e a n t H o lli ste r’s su icid e p re v e n tio n tra in in g lef t h im s ens i t i ve t o cl ues of pos s i bl e s ui ci de, butther e i s no evi dence thatM r . B el den e x h ib ite d a n yo f

th e s e te n d e n c ie s . H e s im p ly w a s n o t a n o b v io u s s u ic id e ri s k . B eca us e ther e i s no evi dence t hatSer geantH ol l i s t ercons i der ed M r . B el den s u ic id a l, h e c o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n d e lib e ra te ly in d iffe re n t to th e ri s k o f s u ic id e . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e c o n c l u d e t h a th e i s e n t i t l e d t o q u a l i fi e d i m m u n i ty.- 21 -

B . Sher i ff Shoemaker “A s upervi s ori s notl i abl e unders ect i on 1983 unl es s an affi r m at i ve l i nk exi s t s betw een the cons t i tut i onal depr i vat i on and ei therthe s upervi s or ’ s per s onal par t i ci pat i on, hi s exer ci s e of c ontr ol ordi r ect i on, orhi s fai l ur e t o s upervi s e. ” M eade v. G rubbs , 841 F. 2d 1512, 1527 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and al t er at i ons om i t t ed) . A ddi t i onal l y , “[l ] i abi l i tyof a s upervi s orunder§ 1983 m u st be p red icated o n the s u p erv isor’s de li b era te i n d iffe ren ce , rathe r th an m ere negl i gence . ” G r een v. B r ans on, 108 F. 3d 1296, 1302 ( 10th C i r . 1997) . A l though S h eriff S h o em ak er d id n o t perso n all yp arti cipa te i n the e v en ts l ea d ing u p to M r. B el den’ s s ui ci de, t he magi s t r at e j udge rul ed thathe coul d be l i abl e for inad eq u atelysu p erv isi n g an d tr ainin g S erg ea n t H o ll ist er a n d O fficer R o b erts. II A pl t . A pp. at344- 46. O n appea l , he ar gues thathe i s ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni t ybeca us e he w as , atm os t , negl i gent . A pl t . B r . at32. W e agr ee. A s th e S h e riff

o f B ro w n C o u n ty , S h e riff S h o e m a k e r is u lti m a tely re sp o n sib le fo r th e o p e ra tio n o f th e B ro w n C o u n tyJa il an d th e c o n d u c t o f its empl oy ees . K an. St at . A nn. § 19- 811 ( 2005) . T hus , he i s r es pons i bl e forthe po l i cydecis i on t hat j ai l ers t ypical l yare noteven offered a basi c corr ect i on s cl ass unt i l t heyhave be en empl oy ed fora y ear . H e i s l i kew i s e ac count abl e forthe fa ct t hatO ffi cerR obert s w as empl oy ed forei ght een mont hs w i thoutunder goi ng any form al t r ai ni ng–l etal one anys ui ci de pr event i on tr ai ni ng. Fur therm or e, Sher i ff Shoem akeri s r es pons i bl e forl eavi ng 23 i nm at es i n the cha r ge of one j ai l erforan- 22 -

e n tire e ig h t-h o u r sh if

t, su c h th a t an yd istu rb a n c e w o u ld re q u ire th e jaile r to s u mm o n a r o a d d e p u t ywh o c o u l d t a k e a n h o u ro rmo r e t o r e s p o n d . Al th o u g h we are sen sit ive to the c o n str aints o n b u d g et an d m an p o w er fac ed b ya sm all sh eriff ’s depart m ent , t hes e pol i ci es ar e tr oubl i ng. Y et , as the sheri ff em ph asi zes, m ere negli gen ce i s not enou gh ; he m ust have be en del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o the r i s k of pr i s oners ui ci de i f he i s t o be liab le u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . G re e n , 1 0 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 2 . T h u s, th e re c o rd m u st c o n tain e v id e n c e f

ro m w h ich a ju ryc o u ld in fe r th a t S h e riff S h o e m a k e r k n e w th a t h is pol i ci es w er e i ns uffi ci entt o pr ot ecti nm at es fr om the r i s k of s ui ci de. W e have r evi ew ed the r ecor d, and w e fi nd no s uch evi dence . Sher i ff Shoemakerhas u n d e rg o n e e x ten siv e su icid e p re v e n tio n tra in in g b yK a n z a a n d o th e r m e n tal h e a lth and corr ect i onal agenc i es . See I A pl t . A pp. at139- 40. D ur i ng hi s ei ght - y ear tenu re, M r. B elde n w as th e fir st i n m ate to h av e tak en h is ow n li fe d esp it e m o re than sev en ty -five p ri o r suicide att em p ts. Id. at 14 0 -41 . N o thing in the sh eriff ’s t r ai ni ng orexper i ence puthi m on not i ce thathi s pol i cyof not i fy i ng K anza atthe fi r s ts i gn t hatan i nm at e w as cons i der i ng harm i ng hi m s el f w as i nadequa t e. W hi l e, i n hi nds i ght , i ti s cl earthatSher i ff Shoemakercoul d have be t t er t r ai ned and s upervi s ed hi s s ubor di nat es , ther e i s no evi dence thathe w as del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o t he r i s k of i nm at e s ui ci de. M or eover , ther e i s no evi dence t hatO ffi cerR obert s w oul d have pr event ed M r . B el den’ s s ui ci de i f he had bee n bet t ert r ai ned; aft eral l , Ser geantH ol l i s t erunderw ents ever al K anza- 23 -

t r ai ni ng cour s es and t es t i fi ed thathe di d notbel i eve thatM r . B el den w as a s ui ci de r i s k. I d. at106. A ccor di ngl y , Sher i ff Shoemakeri s ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m u n i t y i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i ty. RE VE RS E D a n d RE M ANDE D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge