Opinion ID: 2972888
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cadet Crouse

Text: The plaintiff next argues that Crouse acted with deliberate indifference to Bradley’s suicidal tendencies because he failed to make 15 minute checks on Bradley as is provided for in Ferndale’s Policies and Procedures. (Appellee’s Brief at 39.) Here, the evidence shows that Crouse was hired as a police intern on October 15, 1999. (J.A. at 245-246.) Crouse testified that his duties as an intern required him to assist the dispatcher and desk officer in the dispatch center. (J.A. at 245.) Crouse testified that this usually entailed answering telephones, dispatching units to police calls and booking and checking on prisoners. (J.A. at 246.) Crouse noted that he also washed the police cars and picked up the prisoners’ meals. (J.A. at 248.) Finally, Crouse noted that, as an intern, he was not to perform a job unless he was specifically instructed to do so. (J.A. at 246.) On the night of Bradley’s suicide, Crouse had been instructed to try and contact the barricaded gunman by telephone.4 (J.A. at 250-51.) Crouse noted that this was a continuing process as he would let the phone ring until the answering machine picked up, at which time he would hang up and call again. (J.A. at 250-51.) Crouse testified that he was not involved in booking Bradley and that he didn’t remember anything from the time Bradley was booked until White checked his cell 36 minutes later. (J.A. at 250, 252.) As Crouse noted in his deposition, he was only responsible for checking on prisoners when he was specifically ordered to do so. (J.A. at 246.) At no point does the plaintiff suggest that Thomson ordered Crouse to cease his attempts to contact the barricaded gunman and check on Bradley. Because the plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence suggesting that Crouse was responsible for checking on Bradley, it cannot be said that his failure to do so 4 Captain Collins’s deposition further supports Crouse’s testimony that he had been assigned to try and make contact with the barricaded gunman on the night of Bradley’s suicide. (J.A. at 344.) -13- constituted a conscious disregard of Bradley’s suicidal tendencies. Therefore, the court finds that the district court erred in failing to grant Crouse’s motion for summary judgment.