FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB 06, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 14 01 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 4- 02 63 6- CV-5 -CLS JULIA HUFF WALKER, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, CITY OF, CHIEF COM PTON OW ENS, in di vi du al ly andin hi s Off ic ia l Capa ci ty as Ch ie f of

Po li ce o f th e Ci ty of Hun ts vi ll e, Alab am a, R. ROSSER, ID# 09 27 0, J. WAT KINS, ID# 1 19 16 , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Febru ar y 6 , 20 09 )Befo re BI RCH, CARNES an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Ju li a Huf f W al ke r su edth e Ci ty of Hun ts vi ll e, it s p ol ic e ch ie f, an d p ol ic e of fic ers Rh on daRo ss er an d J en ni fer Watk in s u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 an d a n a rray of st at e law cau se s o f act io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o t he de fen da nt s o n a ll of Walk er’s cl ai m s. Walk er ap pe al s o nl y th e d is tri ctco urt’s reject io n o f he r Fo urth Am en dm en t cl ai m ag ai ns t the off

ic ers an d h er Fo urte en th Am en dm en t cl ai m s ag ai ns t al l o f th e d efen da nt s. I. W al ke r was dri vi ng ho m e fro m a fri en d’s h ou se on Sund ay , Ju ly 28, 2 00 2 whe n R on al d S he affe r, who was s it ti ng on hi s p or ch , saw h er driv e in to hi s ne ig hb or ’s y ard . She affe r saw W al ke r m ak e a U-turn o nt o t he wron g s id e o f th e st reet , sm as h am ai lb ox , th endri ve on to a si de walkan d e ve ntua ll y st op in th e m id dl e o f anin te rs ect io n, wh ere s he sl um pe d o ve r th e whe el . She affe r cal le d t he po li ce. Offi cer Watk in s arriv edat t he sce ne , no ti cedth e fal le n m ai lb ox , andsaw th atW al ke r’s car was st il l i n t he m id dl e o f th e in te rs ect io n, ru nn in g, an d i n driv e. Offi cer Watk in s p la cedW al ke r’s car i n p ark , th enli fte d h er h eadfro m th e st eeri ng whe el an d a sk edif s he was o ka y . W al ke r’s res po ns e was un in te ll ig ib le . Office r 2W atki ns ob se rv edth atW al ke r se em ed“ ha lf a sl eep an d h al f awak e,” h er s pe ech

was ve ry sl urred , herey es were b lo od sh ot , andhe r ha ir wa s i n d is arra y . W al ke r di d n otap pe ar t o kno w whatwas g oi ng on an d s ta te d t ha t s he was i n h er l iv in g ro om an d t ha t s he ne ed edto ge t dres se d. By the n Off ic er Ro ss er al so ha d arri ve d atth e sc en e an d wi tn es se d Walk er’s co nd it io n. Al l fo urwitne ss es — Offi cers W atki ns an d R os se r, Sh eaff er, an d S he affe r’s ne ig hb or —t es ti fie d t ha t the y be li ev edth atW al ke r was dru nkor o n d ru gs . Tho ug h n o o ne sm el le d a lc oh ol on W al ke r, Offi cer Watk in s fo un d anu m be r of un id en ti fiabl e p il ls in he r pu rs e. 1 W al ke r was arre st edforDUI un de r Ala . Cod e § 32 -5 A-1 91 (a)( 5) an d fo r st op pi ng 2 in th e ro adway

un de r § 3 2- 5A- 13 7. W al ke r was bo ok edin to jail at a ro un d 6 :0 0 p m on Sund ay

ev en in g. Sh e rem ai ne d i n c us to dy for m or e th an22 ho ur s. Onhe r arri va l atth e jail , W al ke r was fo un d t oo “ in to xi cat ed ” fo r fi ng erp rin ti ng or m ed ic al ex am in at io n, an d s he rem ai ne d i n t he bo ok in g a rea o f th e jail forhe r en ti re s ta y th ere e xc ep t fo r fo ur ho ur s i n c ou rt. Ov ern ig hton Sund ay , W al ke r was co he ren t en ou gh to rece iv e th e

L ater analy sis determined that they wer e ca ffe ine pills. 1 Ala. Code § 32-5A -191 states: (a) A pe rson shall not drive or be in actual phy sical 2 control of a

ny vehicle while: . . . (5) Unde r the influenc e of a ny substance which impairs the mental or phy sical fa culties of such pe rson to a degree which re nders him or he r inca pable of safe ly driving .” 3jail ’s bas ic m ed ic al scr een in g, wh ic h c on si st s o f a s eri es of que st io ns de si gn edto

el ic itth e subjec t’s m ed ic al co nd it io n. Earl y Mo nd ay m orni ng , sh e was ev id en tl y se enby a nu rs e atth e jail . Thro ug h a ll of t hi s, i t ap pe ars th atW al ke r rem ai ne d t oo im pa ire d t o e nt er the ge ne ral jail po pu la ti on , bu t n otim pa ire d e no ug h, o r im

pa ire d fo r lo ng en ou gh , to cau se ser io us co nc ernto th e jail st aff. On M on da y

aft ern oo n, Walk er’s s on s l oc at edhe r atth e jail an d t oo k h er ho m e. W al ke r si gn edhe r own pro pe rty relea se form an d re fu se d h er s on s’ in qu iri es ab ou t m ed ic al att en ti on . She rem ai ne d t o s om e d eg ree i nc oh eren t an d su ffer edfro m

a he ad ach e an d m em ory

lo ss . Notun ti l Tu es da y

aft ern oo n d id W al ke r’s so n i ns is t o n t ak in g h er t o t he ho sp it al , wher e sh e was in it ia ll y co ns id ereda no n- ur ge ntpa ti en t. Ho ur s l at er, a CT s can rev eal eda bl eed in g an eu ry sm in he r br ai n. Lat e th atni gh t, Walk er was tra ns ferr edto an ot he r ho sp it al , un de rwen t em erg en cy

bra insu rg ery, an d s urvi ve d.

II . W e rev ie w de n ov o t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t. Cam pb el l v . Sik es , 16 9 F .3d13 53 , 13 61 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). “ W e ap pl y th e sa m e le ga l s tand ard s as th e d is tri ctco urt an d v ie w all fact s an d re as on ab le in fere nc es in th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on m ov in g p arty .” Gis h v . Tho m as , 51 6 F .3d95 2, 95 4 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 8) . 4II I.

W al ke r fi rs t co nt en ds th atOffic ers Ro ss er an d Watk in s arres te d h er wi th ou t pr ob ab le cau se to be li ev e th atsh e h adbe endri vi ng un de r th e in flu en ce i n vi ol at io n o f Ala . Cod e § 32 -5 A-1 91 . Accor di ng ly, sh e arg ue s t ha t the off ic ers vi ol at edhe r Fo urth Am en dm en t ri gh ts an d t ha t the di stric t co urt erredwhen it gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t t o the m . To es tabl is h avi ol at io n o f th e Fo urth Am en dm en t, Walk er m us t s ho w th at he r arre stwas u nr eas on ab le . Bro wer v . Cou nt y of I nyo, 48 9 U.S. 5 93 , 59 9 (1 98 9) (“ Sei zu re al on e is no t en ou ghfor§ 1 98 3 l iabi li ty; th e se iz ur e m us t b e un reas on ab le .”) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . An arre stis un reas on ab le if i t i s n ot supp orte d b y

pro babl e cau se . Cro sb y

v. Mo nr oe Co un ty, 39 4 F .3d13 28 , 13 32 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . “ Pro babl e cau se is de fin edin term s o f fac ts an d c irc um st an ces su ffi ci en t t o warran t a p ru de ntm anin be li ev in g t ha t the su sp ectha d c omm it te d o r was co m m it ti ng anoff

en se .” Id . (ci ti ng Gers te in v. Pu gh , 42 0 U.S. 1 03 , 11 1 (1 97 5) ). Offi cer Watk in s ar gu es th atsh e h adpro babl e cau se to arre stW al ke r fo r DUI. W it ne ss es to ldOffic er Watk in s t ha t Walk er h adbe endri vi ng in pe op le ’s y ard s an d t ha t s he ha d h ita m ai lb ox , andth e d am ag edm ai lb ox was a t the sce ne fo r al l t o s ee. Offi cer Watk in s fo un d Walk er “ ha lf- as le ep , hal f-awake ”— 5es se nt ia ll y

pa ss edou t atth e whe el in th e m id dl e o f th e ro ad ; h er eyes were bl oo ds ho t, h er s pe ech was s lu rredan d uni nt el li gi bl e; sh e was di so rie nt edan d d id no t kno w wher e sh e was . Add it io na ll y , th ou ghno on e smelle d a lc oh ol , W al ke r’s pu rs e co nt ai ne d p il ls of a n u nkno wn k in d. Th e p il ls were l at er fo un d t o b e caff ei ne , andW al ke r tu rn edou t t o b e su ffer in g fr om bl eed in g i n h er b rai n a ndno t fro m th e in flu en ce o f drug s, b utth e fac ts Offic er Watk in s o bs erv edwere en ou gh to supp ly pro babl e cau se . See Qian v . Kaut z, 16 8 F .3d94 9, 9 54 (7t h C ir. 1 99 9) (“ eas il y ” fi nd in g p ro babl e cau se to arres t a d riv er fo r DUI whe re the off ic er ob se rv eda sl um

pe d, u nk em

pt , un st eady

m anwith s lu rredsp eech who ha d b een in a o ne -car acci de ntan d wh om

th e o ffi cer d idno t kno w was s uf feri ng fro m

a subdur al he m at om a). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o Off

ic ers W atki ns an d R os se r on W al ke r’s Fo urth Am en dm en t cl ai m was p ro pe r. 3

IV.

Be cause no constitutional right wa s violated, we ne ed not furthe r discuss the off icer s’ 3 qualified immunity

defe nse. Saucie r v. Katz, 533 U.S . 194, 201 (2001) ( “I f no constitutional right would have be en violated we re the alleg ations established, there is no nece ssity for f urther inquiries conce rningqualified immunity .”). 6W al ke r al so co nt en ds th atall of t he de fen da nt s v io la te d h er Fo urte en th

Am en dm en t ri gh ts by acti ng with d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o h er s eri ou s m ed ic al co nd it io n wh il e sh e was incu st od y . “ To p rev ai l, [a ] Pl ai nt iff m us t p ro ve bo th [1] anob jecti ve ly seri ou s m ed ic al ne edan d [2 ] th ata Defen da ntact edwith d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce t o t ha t n eed .” Bu rn et te v. Taylor, 5 33 F.3d13 25 , 13 30 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Fi rs t, “ [i]n o urcir cu it , a se rio us m ed ic al ne edis co ns id eredon e th atha s be endi ag no se d b y

a ph y si ci anas m an da ti ng tre atm en t o r on e th atis so ob vi ou s th atev ena la y

pe rs on wou ldeas il y

reco gn iz e th e n eces si ty for a d oc to r's at te nt io n.” Farro w v. West , 32 0 F .3d12 35 , 12 43 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) . Whe th er Walk er p os se ss edan“ ob jecti ve ly seri ou s m ed ic al ne ed ” whi le in po li ce cu st od y de pe nd s o n wh ethe r ph y si ci an ’s di ag no se s th atoc cu r on ly la te r

qu al ify, or if

no t, o n wh ethe r W al ke r’s su sp ic io us ly len gt hy

“ in to xi cat io n” sh ou ldha ve be en“ eas il y reco gn iz ed ” as requi rin g ado ct or ’s at te nt io n. Re ga rd le ss of wh ethe r W al ke r can sat is fy th e te stfor“ ob

jecti ve ly se rio us m ed ic al ne ed ,” ho wev er, s he can no t d em on st rat e d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce. To es tabl is h “ de li be rat e in di ffer en ce” t o h er s eri ou s m ed ic al ne ed , W al ke r m us t d em on st rat e th ata de fen da ntha d “ (1 ) subjec ti ve kn owl ed ge of aris k o f se rio us ha rm ; (2 ) di sr eg ardof t ha t ri sk ; (3 ) by con du ctth atis m or e th an[gr os s] 7ne gl ig en ce.” Bo zem anv. Oru m , 42 2 F .3d12 65 , 12 72 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ); B urne tt e,

53 3 F .3dat 1 33 0. Del ib erat e in di ffer en ce i s a s ub jecti ve tes t, an d re qu ire s a pl ai nt iff to de m on st rat e th ata de fen da nt kn ewof h er co nd it io n o r of ser io us m ed ic al ris k. Bu rn et te , 53 3 F .3dat 1 33 1 (“No l iabi li ty aris es un de r th e Co ns ti tu ti on for

anoff ic ia l's fai lu re t o a ll ev ia te a si gn ifi can t ri skth athe sh ou ld ha ve pe rcei ve d b utdi d n ot .”) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) ; Ca rr v . Tatan ge lo , 33 8 F.3 d 1 25 9, 1 27 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (fi nd in g n o d el ib erat e in di ffer en ce wh ere p ol ic e of fic ers actua ll y

sh ota su sp ectbu t wer e u naware t ha t h e h adbe enhi t). W al ke r ha s p ro du cedno ev id en ce tha t o ffi cers Ro ss er o r W at ki ns , or p ol ic e ch ie f Owen s, o r an y on e atth e Hun ts vi ll e jail kn ew th atsh e h ada se rio us m ed ic al co nd it io n. In fact , no on e atall was a ware o f itun ti l h er CT s can ; ev enth e nur se atth e h os pi ta l’s em erg en cy roo m tri ag e co ns id eredhe r a n on -u rg en t p at ie ntan d ke pthe r wai ti ng m or e th ananho ur . The fac t i s t ha t Walk er’s s ym pt om s wer e eas il y co nf us edwith t he effe ct s o f dr ug s o r al co ho l. A lo t o f pe op le m ad e th at m is ta ke , andev enif i t was ne gl ig en t o f th e o ffi cers or the jail ers no t t o p ro vi de W al ke r wit h m or e in te ns iv e m ed ic al care , mis ta ke nl y fai li ng to id en ti fy

a br ai n an eu ry sm is no t de li be ra te in di ffer en ce. Bec au se W al ke r ha s en ti rel y fai le d t o pr oduc e ev id en ce fo r aness en ti al ele m en t o f he r Fo urte en th Am en dm en t cl ai m — th ata de fen da ntwas aware o f a s eri ou s m ed ic al co nd it io n a ndde li be rat el y ig no red 8it— s umm ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t h er was pro pe r. See Ce lo te x, 4 77 U.S. 31 8, 3 23

(1 98 6) (th ere c an“be no ge nu in e is su e as to an y m at eri al fact. . .[where th ere i s] a co m pl et e fai lu re o f pr oo f co nc ern in g a n e ss en ti al ele m en t o f th e n on m ov in g pa rty’ s ca se .”). 4 V. Fi na ll y , W al ke r ap pe ars to m ak e a cl ai m ag ai ns t p ol ic e Ch ie f Owen s an d t he Ci ty of Hun ts vi ll e fo r en act in g p ol ic e p ol ic ie s t ha t re su lt edinde li be rat e in di ffer en ce t o c on st itut io na l ri gh ts . See Co tt on e v . Jen ne , 32 6 F .3d13 52 , 13 60 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . Thes e cl ai m s fa il be cau se we ha ve fou ndth atth ere i s n o un de rlyin g c on st itut io na l v io la ti on . Bes he rs v. Harr is on , 49 5 F .3d12 60 , 12 74 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (“ W e n eedno t ad dr es s t he App el la nt 's c la im s o f m un ic ip al or supe rv is ory

li ab il it y si nc e we co nc lu de no co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n o ccurred .”); Vin ey ardv. Co un ty of Mu rray, 990 F.2d12 07 , 12 11 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (“ Onl y when itis cle ar tha t a v io la ti on of s pe ci fic rig ht s h as oc curredcanth e que st io n o f § 1 98 3

There fore we ne ed not, and do not, re ach the issue of whe ther Walker ha s demonstrated 4 that her la ck of me dical ca re while in police custody actua lly cause d her a

ny injury or worse ned her a neury sm or its effe cts. Nor do we need to r eac h the offic ers’ qualified immunity defe nse. Saucier , 533 U.S. at 201. Walker’s c laims ag ainst Chief Owe ns and the City of Huntsville are sketchy , hardly 5 argued, and dif

ficult to define. T he deta ils of those claims are unimportant, howeve r, bec ause in any event they

are doomed by

Walker’s fa ilure to avoid summary judgme nt on the alleg ed underlying c onstitut ional violations. 9m

un ic ip al li ab il it y

forth e in jury aris e.”); see als o C am pb el l v . Sik es , 16 9 F .3d 13 53 , 13 74 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (s ta ti ng th ata cl ai m forsupe rv is ory

li ab il it y fai ls whe re the re i s n o und erl y in g c on st itut io na l v io la ti on ). Insu m , W al ke r ne arl y

di edof abra in an eu ry sm . No o ne — n otOffic ers W atki ns or R os se r, no t the two witne ss es to he r caracci de nt , no t the Hun ts vi ll e jail ers , no t Walk er’s o wn t wo s on s, an d n otev enanER nu rs e p erfo rm in g t ria ge — was ab le to di st in gu is h h er s ym pt om s fr om

so m e fo rm

of i nt ox ic at io n o r to reco gn iz e th em

as r equi rin g i m

m ed ia te m ed ic al att en ti on . W al ke r en du redan un fo rtu na te ser ie s o f ev en ts , bu t we ca n fi ndno vi ol at io n o f he r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s. AFFIRMED.

10