2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

7-3-2007 

# J oines v . R id ley T ownshi p
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 06-2518

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" J o ine s v . R id ley T o wn ship " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 816. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/816

### NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 06-2518
KATHLEEN JOINES, Plenary Guardian of the Person and Estate of Sean Joines, Appellant

v. TOWNSHIP OF RIDLEY; RIDLEY TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT, Police Officer with Badge 127 Whose Illegible Signature Appears on the Attached Citation; RICHARD C. HERRON, Captain; JACK WHALEN, Commissioner, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee; PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE; RICHARD HERRON, JR., Police Officer; STEVE DRELLING, Police Officer; HARVEY PIKE, Police Officer; ANNE E. HOWANSKI, Township Manager/Secretary; COUNTY OF DELAWARE; JOHN DOE, Ridley Township Police Department; JOHN DOE 1, Ridley Township Police Department; JOHN DOE 2, Ridley Township Police Department; JOHN DOE 3, Ridley Twp.; JOHN DOE 4, Ridley Twp.; JOHN DOE 5, Ridley Twp.

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 04-cv-03430) District Judge: Honorable John P. Fullam
Submitted pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) June 5, 2007* 

### The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 

### Before: SMITH, COWEN, and SILER, * 

### Circuit Judges

. (Filed: July 3, 2007)

OPINION OF THE COURT SILER, Circuit Judge

. Plaintiff Kathleen Joines appeals the districtcourt’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Township of Ridley (“Township”). Plaintiff, on behalf of her son, Sean Joines, sued the Township and several officers, including Officer Ri chard C. Herron, Jr., for not preventing her son’s attempted suicide. Joines was a pretrial detain ee who hanged himself within eight minutes of his detention at the Ridley Township Police Headquarters. This attempted suicide resulted in permanent brain injury. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiff argue s that the Township is liable for not preventing the suicide attempt. We AFFIRM the district court. I. Officer’s Liability In order to show Officer Herron’s liability, Plaintiff “has the burden of establishing three elements: (1) the detainee had a particular vulnerability to suicide, (2) the custodial officer or officers knew or should have known of that vulnerability, and (3) those officers ‘acted with reckless indifference’ to the detainee's particular vulnerability.” Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp ., 946 F.2d 1017, 1023 (3d Cir. 1991). She has not met this burden. In order for a “particular vulnerability to suic ide” to exist there must be a “strong likelihood, rather than a mere possibility, that self-inflicted harm will occur.” Id. at 1024. Here, Joines was3 young, intoxicated, and acting irrationally in his cell. Plaintiff offered expert testimony that these factors point toward a heightened risk of suicide, but even her own expert did not suggest that these factors represented a strong likelihood of self-inflicted harm. Joines’s behavior in no way demonstrated that he was inclined toward se lf-inflicted harm. Therefore, Plaintiff has not established the first element, so the claim fails. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff could establish that a substantial risk of suicide existed, she still has not established that Officer Herron knew or should have known of Joines’s vulnerability to suicide. In 1998, Officer Herron stopped Joines while he was walking along the railroad tracks, drunk, and with wounds on his arms. The 1998 incident is not enough to show that Officer Herron should have known that Joines presented a risk of suicide on the night at issue here. The 1998 incident was almost four years earlier, which is too remote in time for a law enforcement officer to be expected to remember one incident that did not even lead to an arrest. Officer Herron allegedly should have remembered that Joines had wounds on his arms indicative of attempted suicide. However, during the 1998 incident, Joines told Officer Herron that he received the wounds while defending himself from assault. Further, Plainti ff argues that Officer Herr on should have seen the scars from the 1998 incident when he detained him on the night of the attempted suicide, but she has not offered evidence to establish that the scarri ng was easily identifiable or indicative of selfinflicted harm. Her arguments do not establish “ that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention,” prior to the attempted suicide. Woloszyn v. County of Lawrence , 396 F.3d 314, 320 (3d Cir. 2005).4 Because Officer Herron did not know, nor s hould he have known, of Joines’s potential vulnerability to suicide, he could not have actedwith reckless indifference to that particular vulnerability. Thus, the claims against Officer Herron fail. II. Township’s Liability Plaintiff argues that under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services , 436 U.S. 658 (1978), the Township, Police Captain Richard Herron, and Officer Herron are liable for failure to train, which she maintains resulted in the attempte d suicide. It is not enough for Plaintiff to show that the Township’s “employees could have been better trained or that additional training was available that would have reduced the overall risk of constitutional injury.” Colburn , 946 F.2d at 1029-30. In order to prove failure to train, she must “(1) identify specific training not provided that could reasonably be expected to prevent the suicide that occurred, and (2). . . demonstrate that the risk reduction associated with the proposed traini ng is so great and so obvious that the failure of those responsible for the content of the training program to provide it can reasonably be attributed to a deliberate indifference to whether the detainees succeed in taking their lives.” Id. at 1030. She has not proven these elements. Plaintiff relies heavily upon expert testimony th at she believes proves that if the Township had proceeded in accordance with national standards for correctional facilities, the attempted suicide would not have occurred. This testimony, however , is broad, general, and conclusory. Evidence of this nature is not enough to satis fy the first element of the test. See Woloszyn, 396 F.3d at 325. As in Woloszyn , the testimony Plaintiff relies upon suggests th at the Township could have prevented Joines’s attempted suicide through better training, but the evidence does not specifically identify how that training could have identified Joines as an attempted suicide risk. Id. Further, the expert5 testimony suggests that the attempted suicide could have been prevented by closer monitoring of Joines. However, Joines attempted suicide within eight minutes of confinement, and the officers are not required to monitor the cells around the clock. Colburn , 496 F.2d at 1029. The evidence is also insufficient to establish deliberate indifference. It is unclear how Joines could have ever been identified as a suicide risk until after he attempted suicide. His behavior was not unusual for an intoxicated person. Deliberate indifference is not established simply because better policies could have been enacted. Colburn , 946 F.2d at 1029-30. Thus, Plaintiff’s claim for failure to train is meritless. AFFIRMED.