# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 34 77

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ted Ham il to n
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.
Ja m es Sin gl et on
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee
Jo an McC le an ; J oh nn y

God bo lt ; St ep he n Gl ov er
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t s

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Tex ark an a

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 3, 2 01 7 Fi le d: Apri l 1 8, 2 01 7 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, MURP HY, and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.In th is 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 act io n, Ted Ham il to n- -a fo rm er pr et ria l de ta in ee at th e

Hem ps te ad Co un ty D e t e n t i on Cen te r (HCDC)- -cl ai m ed , in te r al ia , th at Hem ps te ad Co un ty Sh eri f

f J am es Si ng le to n was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us m ed ic al

ne ed s by rel eas in g hi m fro m HCDC wit h a le g m on it or on e da y pr io r to a sc he du le d

su rg ery (rel eas e cl ai m ), an d th at Si ng le to n was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t to hi s se rio us
m ed ic al ne ed s by refu si ng to pa y f o r h is su rg ery aft er hi s rel eas e (ref us al -to -p ay cl ai m ). The di st ric t co ur t ad ve rs el y de ci de d th e refu sa l-t o- pa y cl ai m in a de ci si on 1 ad dr es si ng cro ss -m ot io ns fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, an d th e rel eas e cl ai m was ad ve rs el y de ci de d by a jury. On ap pe al , Ham il to n rai se s bo th of th es e cl ai m s, bu t hi s arg um en ts ad dr es s o nl y

th e ad ve rs e su m

m ary jud gm en t d eci si on

.

Afte r care fu l rev ie w of th e reco rd an d th e pa rti es ’ arg um en ts on ap pe al , we fir st de cl in e to rev ie w th e di sp os it io n of th e rel eas e cl ai m

. See Ead dy v. Yan cey, 31 7 F.3 d 91 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (d ecl in in g to rev ie w d en ia l o f m ot io n fo r pa rti al su m m ary aft er fu ll tri al on m eri ts ). W it h reg ard to th e refu sa l-t o- pa y cl ai m , we co nc lu de th at Sh eri ff Si ng le to n was en ti tl e d to qu al ifi ed im m un it y as a m at te r of la w, be cau se th e cl ai m
was no t ba se d up on a co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht th at was c le arl y est ab li sh edat t he ti m e of th e al le ge d m is co nd uc t. See Bea ul ie u v. Lud em an , 69 0 F.3 d 10 17 , 10 24 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (g ran t of su m

m ary jud gm en t is rev ie wed de no vo ); Si sn ey v. Rei sc h, 67 4 F.3 d 83 9, 84 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (two -p ro ng q u a l i f i e d im m un it y in qu iry ex am in es (1 ) if al le ge d fact s m ak e ou t vi ol at io n of co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht , an d (2 ) if co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht vi ol at ed was cl earl y es ta bl is he d at ti m e of de fen da nt ’s al le ge d m is co nd uc t); se e al so Sp irt as Co

. v. Nau ti lu s In s. Co ., 71 5 F.3 d 66 7, 67 0- 71 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (th is co ur t can affi rm on an y ba si s s up po rte d b y

reco rd ). The ju dg m en t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Barr y A. Bryant , Uni te d St a t es Mag is tra te Ju dg e fo r th e 1 W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, to who m th e cas e was refe rred fo r fin al di sp os it io n by
co ns en t o f th e p art ie s p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 63 6( c).
-2

-