2008 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 12-10-2008 

# King v . Glouces te r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3954

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Kin g v . Glouc e s t e r " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 133. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/133H onor abl e J ane A . R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, * s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 07- 3954 C H E S T E R A . K IN G ; E L IZ A B E T H M . D A R D E N , ind iv id u a llya n d in their ca p ac it ies as C o -A d m inistrators a n d A d m inistrators Pr os equendum of t he ES T A T E O F B E R N A R D A . K I N G , D ece as ed,

A p p e llan ts

v. CO UN TY O F GLO UC ESTE R; GLO UC ESTE R CO UN TY J AI L; N EW J ER SEY D EPA RT M EN T O F CO RR EC TI O N S; M ONROE TOW NSHI P ; EDWI N BERWI CK, M ONROE TOW NSHI P P OLI CE CHI EF ; CHRI S TOP HER HARRI S ; M I CHAEL MCLAUG HLI N; ROBER T DE M AR Z I O; RI CH AR D ANDR E S S ; WI L L I AM GL AZ E ; DOMI NI C C AP ANNA; J OHN VA RA L L I ; GE RA L D S HANNO N; DE RE K B RI T T ; J AM E S S HAR P ; ANDY M CC L AVE ; J US T I N HAT T ON; S T E VE N NE WS OM E ; BR I AN Z ANE ; T I M OT HY K R U L IK O W S K I; R O B E R T B R U N O ; R O N N IE S A N D Y ; B A R R Y F E L L S ; C R A IG

M ON AH AN ; J OH N R UM PF ; HO W AR D W I EM ER APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT

FOR TH E DI STRI CT O F NEW J ERSEY ( D . N . J . N o. : 03- cv- 05863) Di s tr i c tJ u d g e : Th e Ho n o r a b l e Re n e e M . Bu mb Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

N ovember20, 2008 B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and R E ST A N I , J udge *C hes t erK i ng ( “C hes t er ”) and El i zabe th D ar den ar e B ernar d’ s bi ol ogi cal par ent s , and 1 w er e the named pl ai nt i ffs , s ui ng i n thei ri ndi vi dual capa ci t i es and as co- admi ni s tr at or s of B e rn a rd ’s e s ta te . 2 ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber10, 2008)

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge A ppel l ant s , the par ent s of dec edentB ernar d K i ng ( “B ernar d”) , appea l fr om the 1 D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof J ohn R um pf, C r ai g M onahan, and H ow ar d W i emer( the “i ndi vi dual defe ndant s ”) , and i n favorof M onr oe Tow ns hi p and P o lic e C h ie f

E d w in B e rw ic k (“ T o w n s h ip ” o r “ m u n ic ip a l d e f e n d a n ts ” ). T hi s l aw s ui tar i s es fr om B ernar d’ s tr agi c j ai l hous e dea th. O n A pr i l 8, 2003, B ernar d w as arr es t ed bythe M onr oe Tow ns hi p Pol i ce D epart m entforvi ol at i ng a tem p o raryrestrai n ing o rde r th at ha d b ee n take n o u t aga inst him b yh is st ep -m o ther, C lau d e tte K in g (“ C lau d e tte” ), o n e w e e k e a rlier . A f ter p ro c e ss in g , h e w a s tra n sf e rre d to the cus t odyof the G l ouces t erC ountySher i ff’ s D epart m ent . H e w as t o be hel d overni ght a t th e G lo u c e s te r C o u n ty ja il, b u t u p o n a rr iv a l, B e rn a rd b e g a n e x h ib itin g b iz a rr e b e h a v io r. A ccor di ng t o t he compl ai nt– w hi ch i s unchal l enged bydefe ndant s – thr ee c orr ect i ons o f f ice rs r e a c ted to B e rn a rd ’s b e h a v io r b yd ra g g in g h im in to a n e lev a to r, sto p p in g it b e tw e e n f

lo o rs, a n d se v e re lyb e a tin g h im . T h e c o rre c tio n s o f f ice rs th e n d ra g g e d h im in to3

a hol di ng cel l , w her e theyl efthi m fac e dow n and s hackl ed t o a bed pos t . B ernar d di ed of pos i t i onal as phy xi a bef or e daw n. A ppel l ant s or i gi nal l yfi l ed s ui tagai ns tthe C ountyof G l ouces t er , the G l ouces t er C ountyJ ai l , the N ew J er s eyD epart m entof C orr ect i ons , and numer ous corr ect i ons o f f ice rs, b u t h a v e sin c e v o lu n tar ilyd ism iss e d th e ir c laim s a g a in st th o se p a rties p u rsu a n t to s ett l ementagr eement s . T hei rr emai ni ng cl ai m s w er e bott om ed on the fa ctthatthe T ow nship Po l i ce D epart m ent s ent B ernar d to pri son rather than t o the hosp i t al . T ho se claim s, b rou g h t un d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 , all eg ed that the in d ividu al de fe n d an ts w ere del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o B ernar d’ s m edi cal needs , i n vi ol at i on of hi s E i ghth and F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t rig h ts; th a t th e m u n icip a l d e f e n d a n ts f a iled to a d e q u a telytra in thei roffi cer s , and deve l oped cus t om s exhi bi t i ng del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o the cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of arr es t ed ci t i zens ; and thatthes e col l ect i ve ac t i ons and omi s s i ons we r e th e p r o x i ma t e c a u s e o f Be r n a r d ’ s d e a th . Ap p e l l a n t s a l s o b r o u g h ts e v e r a l c l a i ms u n d e r N e w J e rs e yla w , a lle g in g n e g lig e n c e , g ro s s n e g lig e n c e , a n d w ro n g f u l d e a th . T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm ent , concl udi ng as a mat t erof l aw t hat the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s w er e notdel i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entand, i n anyevent , w er e ent i t l ed to q u ali fied im m u n ity ; th at th e m u n ici p al de fe n d an ts ne ith er f ail ed to tr ain th eir of

fice rs n o r c re a ted a c u ltu re o f in d if f e re n c e to th e m e d ica l n e e d s o f d e tain e e s; a n d th a t th e sta te law c laim s s h o u ld b e d ism iss e d w ith o u t p re ju d ice . F o r th e f

o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill a f f ir m .4 I. B e rn a rd h a d n u m e ro u s e n c o u n ter s w ith th e T o w n sh ip P o lice D e p a rtm e n t p rio r to h is a rr e s t o n A p ri l 8 , 2 0 0 3 , a t le a s t th re e o f w h ic h o c c u rr e d in th e tw o p re c e d in g w e e k s . D ur i ng eac h encount er , the ef fec t s of hi s s ever e ment al di s or der– s chi zoaf fec t i ve di s or der , bi opol artype – w er e appa r ent . O ne s uch enc ount eroccurr ed on M ar ch 26, 2 0 0 3 , w h e n o f

f ice rs r e sp o n d e d to a c o m p lain t b yC h e ste r th a t B e rn a rd h a d ra n sa c k e d h is h o m e a n d d e stro y e d m u c h o f th e f u rn itu re th e re in . B e rn a rd w a s re stra in e d a n d tak e n to U nderw ood M emori al H os pi t al fora ps y chi atr i c eva l uat i on. H e r emai ned atU nderw ood unt i l A pr i l 1, 2003, and hos pi t al r ecor ds r efl ectthathe w as s uffe r i ng fr om “s chi zoaf

fec t i ve di s or der , bi pol artype, ” and thathe w as “curr ent l ym ani c. ” Fol l ow i ng the furni tur e- des truct i on epi s ode, B ernar d’ s s t ep- m other , C l audett e, s oughtand r ece i ved a te m p o ra ry re s tr a in in g o rd e r a g a in s t h im . L ate in the ev en ing o f A p ri l 8, 20 0 3 , B ern ard w en t t o C h ester an d C laud ett e’s h o m e a n d b eg an ri n g ing the d o o r be ll – thu s init iat ing co n tact pro h ibit ed b ythe tem p o rary restrai n ing o rde r. C laud ett e, w h o w as h o m e a lon e, l ef t th e h o u se th rou g h the b ac k d o o r, a n d w e n t to h e r s o n ’s h o m e n e x t d o o r. H e r s o n c a lle d th e p o lic e a s B e rn a rd d ro v e a w a y . Ser geantH ow ar d W i emer( “W i emer ”) r ece i ved a r adi o di s pat ch r eport i ng that B ernar d had vi ol at ed the r es tr ai ni ng or der , r es ponded t o the ar ea of the vi ol at i on, and s aw B ernar d’ s vehi cl e. H e pul l ed B ernar d over , i dent i fi ed hi m , and as ked hi m t o s t ep outof the vehi cl e. A tthatpoi nt , back- up offi cer s C r ai g M onahan ( “M onahan” ) and J ohn5

R um pf ( “R um pf”) arr i ved. I ti s notdi s put ed thatB ernar d w as cal m , pol i t e, and compl i ant atthe t i m e. H e w as pl ace d underarr es t , and tr ans por t ed t o the Tow ns hi p pol i ce s t at i on by R um pf and M onahan. D ur i ng the tr i p, B ernar d w as cooper at i ve and a w ar e of the ci r cumst ance s – he as ked how l ong the pr oces s w oul d t ake, and i ndi cat ed thathe nee ded to b e a t w o rk in th e m o rn in g . U p o n a rriv a l at th e sta tio n , h e w a s h a n d c u f f e d to a b e n c h in the h oldi ng area. H e con t i nu ed to be co nv ers ant and aw are of his surr ou nd i ng s. R um pf t ook contr ol of the pr oces s i ng and the i nves t i gat i on. I n the pr oces s of fi l l i ng outthe arr es tr eport , he r evi ew ed a c opyof the t empora ryr es tr ai ni ng or der , w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatB ernar d w as “bi pol ar/ m ani c depr es s i ve” a nd “j us tr el eas ed [f r om the hos pi t al ] . ” R um pf al s o s poke w i th C l audett e, w ho arr i ved atthe pol i ce s t at i on t o fi l e a vi ct i m s t at ement . C l audett e des cr i bed the eve nt s of thateveni ng, and the furni tur edes truct i on epi s ode, i n s om e det ai l . She i ndi cat ed thatB ernar d w as bi pol ar , and thathe sh o u ld h a v e b e e n tak in g m e d ica tio n . S h e d e c lin e d to p o st b a il o f $ 2 5 0 b e c a u se sh e d id n o t w a n t B e rn a rd o n th e s tr e e t b e f o re th e h e a ri n g th e f

o llo w in g m o rn in g . A ft erC l audett e i nform ed R um pf thatB ernar d s houl d have be en on medi cat i on, R um pf furtheri nves t i gat ed the mat t er . H e fi r s tas ked B ernar d abouthi s m edi cat i on, and B e rn a rd re s p o n d e d th a t h e w a s n o t s u p p o s e d to b e ta k in g m e d ic a tio n a n d h a d n o t d o n e s o . R um pf as ked M onahan w hetherhe l ocat ed anym edi cat i on i n B ernar d’ s car , and M o n a h a n in d ica ted th a t h e h a d n o t. In h is d e p o sitio n , R u m p f sta ted th a t h e p a id part i cularat t enti on t o B ernar d’s dem eano r – eval uati ng him for “si gn s of m ental dis tres s,Ser geantB arr yFel l of the G l ouces t erC ountySher i ff’ s D epart m entarr i ved atthe 2 T ow ns hi p pol i ce s t at i on t o t r ans por tB ernar d, and found hi m handcuf fed t o the benc h, exh i bit i ng a cal m dem eano r. F el l spok e bri efl yw i th several T ow nship poli ce of fi cers , and as ked B ernar d m edi cal ques t i ons forthe C ounty ’ s i nt ake f or m . B ernar d di d not i ndi cat e thathe w as i n need of m edi cal att ent i on, nordi d hi s demeanorbetr aya nee d for m edi cat i on orhos pi t al i zat i on. T he G l ouces t erC ountyPr i s on r ecor ds r efl ectthat B ernar d’ s m ent al and phy s i cal condi t i on, upon i nt ake, w as “okay . ” 6 h i s m o o d , h i s p e r c e p t i o n , [ w h e th e r ] h e w a s u n d e rd u r e s s , i f h e w a s d i s h e v e l e d i n a n y w a y, [w hether ] he l ook[ed] l i ke he w as i n dangerof [ha r m i ng] hi m s el f ori n dangerof in f lic tin g h a rm to a n yb o d ye ls e o r p ro p e rt y ” – a n d th a t h e s h o w e d n o d is tu rb in g s ig n s . R um pf, ther efor e, det erm i ned thata ps y chi atr i c s cr eeni ng w as unnece s s aryand ca l l ed for a tr a n s f e r t o th e G lo u c e s te r C o u n ty p ri s o n . B e rn a rd d id n o t s u rv iv e th e n ig h t. 2 II. We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 . We r e v i e w a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo, vi ew i ng the under l y i ng fac t s and r eas onabl e i nfer ence s ther efr om i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the partyoppos i ng the m o tio n f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. P a . C o a l A ss ’n v . B a b b itt , 6 3 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). A cc o rdin g ly , a d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m aryjud g m en t i s p rop er o n lyif “the re i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand . . . the movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f law .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ); C ar r as ca v. P om er oy , 313 F. 3d 828, 8 3 2 -33 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). III . A . Indi vi du al D ef

end an t s. A ppel l ant s as s ert : ( 1) thatther e ar e out s t andi ng i s s ues7

of m at er i al fac tr egar di ng w hetherthe i ndi vi dual defe ndant s w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r ent to B e rn a rd ’s m e d ica l n e e d s; a n d (2 ) th a t th e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts w e re n o t en tit led to qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . W e addr es s thes e as s ert i ons i n turn. “To est abl i s h a cl ai m under42 U . S. C . § 1983, pl ai nt i ffs m us tdemonstr at e a vi ol at i on of a r i ghtpr ot ect ed bythe C ons t i tut i on orthe l aw s of the U ni t ed St at es comm i t t ed bya per s on act i ng underthe col orof s t at e l aw . ” N a ta le v . C a m d e n C o u n ty C o rr . Fa c ili ty , 318 F. 3d 575, 580- 81 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . B eca us e i ti s undi s put ed thatthe i ndi vi dual defe ndant s w er e ac t i ng undercol orof s t at e l aw , ourfocus i s on w hetherthey v io la te d B e rn a rd ’s c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts . T he cont our s of the cons t i tut i onal r i ght s ati s s ue ar e notcl ear l ydefi ned, as they in v o lv e a n in ter se c tio n o f th e E ig h th a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts. “ T h e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t’s p ro sc rip tio n o f c ru e l an d u n u su a l p u n ish m e n ts is v io late d b y‘d e lib e ra te i ndi ffe r ence t o s er i ous m edi cal needs of pr i s oner s . ’ ” C i t y of R eve r e v. Mas s . G en. H os p. , 463 U . S. 239, 243- 44 ( 1983) ( quot i ng Este lle v . G a m b le , 4 2 9 U .S . 9 7 , 1 0 4 (1 9 7 6 )). Y e t,

“ th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t’s C ru e l an d U n u su a l P u n ish m e n ts C lau se d o e s n o t ap p lyu n til

‘ aft ers ent ence and convi ct i on. ’ ” H ubbar d v. Tayl or , 399 F. 3d 150, 164 ( 3d C i r . 2005) (H ubbar d I ) ( quot i ng G r aham v. C onor , 49 0 U . S . 38 6, 39 2 n . 6 (198 9)) . B ecause B ernar d w as a pr etr i al det ai nee, the Ei ghth A m endment“has no [di r ect ] appl i cat i on. ” C i t y of Rev ere , 463 U . S. at244. T he appl i cabl e cons t i tut i onal pr ot ect i on i s the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endmentw hi ch “doe s r equi r e the8

re s p o n s ib le ...g o v e rn m e n ta l a g e n c yto p ro v id e m e d ic a l c a re ” to p re -t ri a l d e ta in e e s , i d. , b e c a u s e th e f

a ilu re to d o s o a m o u n ts to p u n is h m e n t w ith o u t a n a d ju d ic a tio n o f

g u ilt. See H ubbar d I, 3 9 9 F . 3 d a t 1 6 6 . I n as s es s i ng the deni al of m edi cal car e t o a pr etr i al det ai nee, the i nqui ryi s w hether the deni al w as “i m pos ed forthe purpos e of puni s hm entorw hetheri t[w as ] butan i nci dentof s om e otherl egi t i m at e governm ent al purpos e. ” B e ll v. W olf ish , 441 U . S. 520, 538 ( 1979) . T hati nqui r yi nvol ves an i ndi r ectappl i cat i on of the Ei ghth A m endment d e lib e ra te in d if

f e re n c e sta n d a rd : “th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s c o n c lu d e d th a t th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t af

f o rd s p re trial d e tain e e s p ro tec tio n s ‘a t lea st a s g re a t as th e E ig h th A m endmentpr ot ect i ons avai l abl e t o a convi ct ed pr i s oner , ’ w i thoutdeci di ng w hethert he Four t eenth A m endmentpr ovi des gr eat erpr ot ect i ons . ” N a ta le , 318 F. 3d at581 ( quot i ng C i t y of Rev ere , 4 6 3 U .S . at 2 4 4 ); s ee al s o I nm at es of

A l l egheny C ount

y Jai lv. P i er ce , 612 F. 2d 754, 762 ( 3d C i r . 1979) ( hol di ng that“ata mi ni m um the ‘ del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence ’ s t andar d of Este lle v . G a m b le , m u s t b e m e t” ). A ppel l ant s do notar gue thatthe Four t eenth A m endmentpr ovi des gr eat er pr ot ect i on than the Ei ghth A m endmenti n the cont extof pr etr i al det ai nees , and i ns t ead cont end thatthe i ndi vi dual defe ndant s w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o B ernar d’ s s er i ous m e d ic a l n e e d s . S e e Este lle , 429 U . S. at106. U nders i m i l arci r cumst ance s i n N a ta le , we s t at ed: “[a ] s the i s s ue w as notr ai s ed bef or e us , w e do notdeci de w hetherthe D ue P rocess C l ause prov i des add i t i on al prot ect i on s t o p retri al detai nees be y on d those9

pr ovi ded bythe Ei ghth A m endmentt o convi ct ed pr i s oner s . ” 318 F. 3d at581 n. 5.

“ W e th e re f

o re e v a lu a te [ p lain tiff

s’] F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t cla im f o r in a d e q u a te m e d ica l ca re u n d e r th e sta n d a rd u se d to e v a lu a te s im ilar c laim s b ro u g h t u n d e r th e E ig h th A m endment , the s ame st andar d us ed bythe D i s tr i ctC our t[bel ow ] . ” Id . at582. “The s t andar d enunci at ed i n Este lle i s tw o- pr onged: ‘ [i ] tr equi r es del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence on the p art of p ri so n o ff

ici als an d itreq u ir es th e p ri so n er’s m ed ical ne ed s to b e se ri o u s. ’” Mon m ou th C ou nty C orrect i on al I nst i t uti on al I

nm ates v. L an zaro , 834 F. 2d 326, 346 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 8 7 ) (c itatio n s o m itt e d ). T h e D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t an iss u e o f

f a c t ex iste d a s to w hetherB ernar d had a s er i ous m edi cal need, butal s o found that , as a mat t erof l aw , t he i ndi vi dual defe ndant s di d notactw i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o thatneed. ( A ppendi x,

“ A .” , a t 1 2 ). T h e p a rt ie s h a v e f o c u s e d o n th e la tte r f

in d in g , a s d o w e . D el i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence r equi r es m or e than i nadequa t e medi cal att ent i on or i ncompl et e medi cal tr eatm ent . “[A ] ct i ng orfai l i ng t o actw i th del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm t o a pr i s oneri s the equi val entof r eckl es s l ydi s r egar di ng thatr i s k. ” Far m erv. B r ennan , 5 1 1 U . S . 8 2 5 , 8 3 6 (19 9 4 ). T h ere fo re, ap p ell an ts w ere r e q u i r e d t o s h o w t h a tth e p r i s o n o f f i c i a l s k n e w o f

a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k o f

s e r i o u s h a r m – w h ic h m a yb e in f

e rr e d if th e ri s k w a s o b v io u s – a n d f a ile d to a c t d e s p ite th a t k n o w le d g e . I d. a t 8 4 2 . T h e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlyc o n c lu d e d th a t, ev e n v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in appel l ant s ’ favor , the r equi s i t e s how i ng had notbeen made. A p p ell an ts’ ce n tr al arg u m en t bef o re u s is th at giv en B ern ard ’s ex tens ive h ist o ryI n vaca t i ng the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi n R ous e v. P lant i er , we 3 s tr es s ed the i m por t ance of det erm i ni ng the i m m edi acyof the r i s k. 182 F. 3d 192, 198- 99 ( 3d C i r . 1999) . T her e, pl ai nt i ffs w er e a c l as s of i ns ul i n- depende ntdi abet i c pr i s oner s w ho al l eged thatN ew J er s eycorr ect i ons offi ci al s w er e del i ber at el yi ndi ffe r entt o thei rm edi cal needs . W e not ed that“notal l i ns ul i n- depende ntdi abet i cs r equi r e the s ame l evel of m edi cal car e. ” I

d. a t 1 9 8 . T h e re a re “ u n sta b le” d iab e tics “ w h o se b lo o d su g a r le v e ls cons i s t ent l yfl uctuat e. . . [and w ho] r equi r e i nt ens i ve medi cal tr eatm ent . ” I d. T h ere are al s o “s t abl e” di abet i cs , “w hos e bl ood s ugarl evel s r emai n [r el at i vel ycons t ant ] overt i m e. ” I d. “C ons equent l y , ” a l evel of ca r e that“vi ol at es the Ei ghth A m endmentr i ght s of the uns t abl e pl ai nt i ffs m aynotvi ol at e the cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of the s t abl e pl ai nt i ffs . ” I d. at 199. H er e, had B ernar d been a ct i ng i n an uns t abl e manner , i ndi cat i ng thatthe nee d for tre a tm e n t w a s u rg e n t, th e o f f ice rs m a yh a v e b e e n c o n stitu tio n a llyre q u ire d to tak e h im to the hos pi t al . T hatw as notthe ca s e. 10 w ith the T o w n sh ip P o li ce D ep artm en t, the in d ividu al de fe n d an ts w ere aw are o f h is sev ere m ent al di s or der , and thatthei raw ar enes s gave r i s e t o an obl i gat i on t o t ake hi m t o the ho spi t al for psy chiatri c t reatm ent. In suppo rtof thatargum ent, theystres s that atl east tw o of the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s – R um pf and M onahan – kne w of B ernar d’ s m ent al d is o rd e r. T h e re is , in d e e d , s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd to s u p p o rt th a t c o n c lu s io n . B utt o s how del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence , appel l ant s w er e al s o r equi r ed t o demonstr at e thatt he in d iv id u a l d e f

e n d a n ts w e re su b

jec tiv e lya w a re th a t th e m e n tal d iso rd e r, if n o t im m e d iate ly tr eat ed, w oul d pos e “a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm . ” I d. ; a n d s e e id . at837 ( “the o f f icia l m u st b o th b e a w a re o f f a c ts f ro m w h ich th e in f

e re n c e c o u ld b e d ra w n th a t a su b sta n tial risk o f

se rio u s h a rm e x ists, a n d h e m u st a lso d ra w th e in f e re n c e ” ); see al

so B eer s - C api t olv. W

het z el , 256 F. 3d 120, 133 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( “the off i ci al m us tactual l ybe a w a re o f th e e x iste n c e o f

th e e x c e ss iv e risk ; itis n o t su f f icie n t th a t th e o f

f icia l sh o u ld h av e b ee n aw are ”). 3In d e e d , w ith o u t m o re , the in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts c o u ld n o t h a v e f o rc e d B e rn a rd to 4 un dergo u nw anted m edical treatm ent. P retri al detai nees ha ve a q uali fi ed “ri gh tt o refuse unw ant ed medi cal tr eatm ent , ” w hi ch contr ol s unl es s the det ai nee ha s demonstr at ed that h e is d a n g e ro u s to h im s e lf o r o th e rs . W

hi t e v. N apol eon , 8 9 7 F . 2 d 1 0 3 , 1 1 2 , 1 1 3 (3d C ir . 1990) . T hus , unl es s B ernar d’ s behavi ori ndi cat ed thathe w as danger ous t o hi m s el f or other s ( and ther e i s nothi ng i n the r ecor d s ugges t i ng thatw as the ca s e) , he coul d notbe m e d ic a te d w ith o u t h is c o n s e n t. A s th e D istric t C o u rt n o ted , p lain tiff s w e re e ss e n tiallya sk in g it t o im p o se a d u ty on l ocal pol i ce de part m ent s t o i nvol unt ar i l ys end al l det ai nees w i th a know n hi s t oryof m ent al i l l nes s t o a ment al heal th cent erforeval uat i on and tr eatm ent . ( A . 13) . T hati s not w hatthe l aw r equi r es , s ee Far m er , 511 U . S. at842, oreven a l l ow s , s ee W h ite , 897 F. 2d a t 1 1 2 . 11 T her e i s no evi dence thatB ernar d r equi r ed i m m edi at e tr eatm ent , orthatthe o ff icers d rew that inf

ere n ce ; i n d ee d , there is sub stan ti al ev iden ce to the co n tr ary . B ern ard w as cal m , conver s ant , and aw ar e of hi s s urr oundi ngs . W hen as ked byR um pf i f he w as on m edi cat i on, orneede d m edi cat i on, B ernar d ans w er ed i n the nega t i ve. A l though C l audett e w arned R um pf thatB ernar d “s houl d be s entback” t o the hos pi t al , ther e w as no i ndi cat i on thata ni ghti n j ai l – w i th a hea r i ng s chedul ed bef or e a s t at e j udge ea r l ythe fol l ow i ng m orni ng – pos ed a s ubs t ant i al r i s k of s er i ous harm . W i thoutm or e, w e ca nnot co n clud e tha t th ere is a j u ryq u esti o n reg ard ing w h ethe r th e ind ividu al de fe n d an ts w ere deli berat el yi nd i fferentt o B ernar d’s m edical need s. 4 In a n ye v e n t, th e in d iv id u a l d e f e n d a n ts w e re e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. “U ndercert ai n ci r cumst ance s , governm entoffi ci al s ar e pr ot ect ed fr om . . . § 1983 s ui t s by qual i fi ed i m m uni ty . ” C o u d e n v . D u ffy , 446 F. 3d 483, 492 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A qual i fi ed i m m uni tyanal y s i s i ncl udes tw o s t eps : fi r s t , “[t ] aken i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the12

partyas s ert i ng the i nj ury , do the fa ct s al l eged s how the off i cer ’ s conductvi ol at ed a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t? ” ; an d , se c o n d , “if a v io latio n [ c a n ] b e m a d e o u t, th e n e x t . . . ste p is t o as k w hetherthe r i ghtw as cl ear l yes t abl i s hed. ” Sa u c ierv . Ka tz , 533 U . S. 194, 201 ( 2001) . E ven as s um i ng pl ai nt i ffs coul d pr evai l atthe fi r s ts t ep, theycoul d notatthe se c o n d . “T h e re lev a n t, dis p o sitiv e in q u iryin d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a rig h t is c lea rly es t abl i s hed i s w hetheri tw oul d be cl eart o a r eas onabl e pol i ce of fi certhathi s conductw as unl aw ful i n the s i tuat i on he conf r ont ed. ” I

d. a t 2 0 2 . T h u s, “ [ t]h e q u a lifie d im m u n ity sta n d a rd ‘g iv e s a m p le r o o m f o r m ista k e n ju d g m e n ts b yp ro tec tin g a ll b u t th e p lain ly i ncompet entorthos e w ho know i ngl yvi ol at e the l aw . ’ ” G iles v . D a v is , 427 F. 3d 197, 203 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng H unt erv. B r

yant , 502 U . S. 224, 229 ( 1991) ) . H er e, the i ndi vi dual defe ndant s found themsel ves betw een tw o compet i ng obl i gat i ons : the nee d t o r es pect B ernar d’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o decl i ne medi cal tr eatm ent , s ee W h ite , 897 F. 2d at112 and supra not e 6, and the obl i gat i on t o be r es pons i ve t o hi s m edi cal needs , s ee N a ta le , 3 1 8 F .3 d a t 5 8 2 . See a l so Sauci er , 533 U . S. at201 ( hol di ng thatdet erm i nat i on of w hetherr i ghti s cl ear l yes t abl i s hed “mustbe undert aken i n l i ghtof the s peci fi c cont extof th e c a s e ” ). T h e irc o n d u c t c a n n o t, th e re f o re , b e c o n s id e re d c le a rl yu n la w f u l. B . Mu n icip a l D e

fen da n ts . A p p e llan ts c o n ten d th a t M o n ro e T o w n sh ip a n d its p o li ce ch ief, E d w in B erw ick, are li ab le fo r fa il ing to ad eq u atelytr ain th e T o w n sh ip’s pol i ce of fi cer s , and fordevel opi ng cus t om s thatexhi bi t ed del i ber at e i ndi ffe r ence t o the cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of det ai nees . T heyas s ertthatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s concl us i on t o the13

c o n tr a ry w a s e rr o r. W e d is a g re e . T h e b u rd e n o n a p lain tiff se e k in g to e sta b lish m u n icip a l li a b ili tyin a § 1 9 8 3 c laim i s qui t e hi gh. A s the Supr eme C our ts t at ed i n B oar d of C ount y C om m is s i oners of

B r yan Co u n t y v . Br o wn : [ I]t is n o t en o u g h f

o r a § 1 9 8 3 p lain tiff

m e re lyto id e n tifyc o n d u c t p ro p e rly a ttribu tab le to th e m u n icip a lity . T h e p lain tiff m u st a lso d e m o n stra te th a t, throug h it s d e lib e ra te conduct , the muni ci pal i tyw as the ‘ m ovi ng for ce’ behi nd the i nj uryal l eged. T hati s , a pl ai nt i ff musts how thatthe muni ci pal act i on w as t aken w i th the r equ i si t e deg ree of culpabil i tyand m ust demonstr at e a di r ectcaus al l i nk betw een the muni ci pal act i on and the d e p ri v a tio n o f

f e d e ra l r ig h ts . 5 2 0 U .S . 3 9 7 , 4 0 4 (1 9 9 7 ) (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l); s ee Monel lv. N ew Y ork C i t y D ept . of Soc. Ser vs . , 436 U . S. 658, 691 ( 1978) . B eca us e appe l l ant s di d notes t abl i s h a cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, theyl i kew i s e di d notes t abl i s h thatthe Tow ns hi p w as the

“ m o v in g f

o rc e ” b e h in d a c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n . See Star t z el v. C i t y of P hi la. , 533 F. 3d 1 8 3 , 2 0 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). C . S ta t e Cla i ms . L as t l y , appel l ant s cont end thatthei rs t at e cl ai m s s houl d be re in sta ted . U n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 (c ), a d istric t co u rt h a s th e d isc re tio n to d e c lin e to exer ci s e s uppl ement al j ur i s di ct i on i f i t“has di s m i s s ed al l cl ai m s overw hi ch i thas o ri g in a l ju ri s d ic tio n .” T h a t d is c re tio n w a s n o t a b u s e d h e re . S e e N o v a k v . Me tro He a lth Med. C tr. , 503 F. 3d 572, 583 ( 6th C i r . 2007) ( “W hen al l fede r al cl ai m s ar e di s m i s s ed befor e tr i al , the bal ance of cons i der at i ons us ual l yw i l l poi ntt o di s m i s s i ng the s t at e l aw c la im s ” ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ).14 I V. W e w il l aff

irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s S ep tem b er 6 , 2 0 0 7 o rde r gra n ti n g su m m ary ju d g m e n t in f

a v o r o f th e in d iv id u a l an d m u n icip a l d e f e n d a n ts, a n d d ism iss in g th e sta te la w c la im s w ith o u t p re

ju d ic e .