Opinion ID: 169076
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sergeant Hollister

Text: The magistrate judge denied Sergeant Hollister’s motion for summary judgment because “the evidence presented raises a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Plaintiff can establish . . . (1) w hether D efendant Hollister . . . had knowledge of the specific risk that Belden would attempt to commit suicide; or (2) whether the evidence demonstrates that the risk of Belden committing suicide was so substantial or pervasive that knowledge by [Sergeant Hollister] can be inferred.” II Aplt. App. at 346. He contends that the evidence in the record, viewed in the light most favorable to M s. Gaston, cannot establish that he was deliberately indifferent to the risk that M r. Belden would kill himself. W e agree. The magistrate judge relied on the following evidence in reaching the conclusion that Sergeant Hollister w as not entitled to qualified immunity: (1) M r. Belden’s cellmates observed suicidal behavior and heard him discussing suicide; (2) M r. Belden was not a disciplinary problem until the day of his death; (3) M r. Belden received a letter from M s. Renz on the day of his death and Sergeant - 16 - Hollister was aware of the receipt and contents of the letter; (4) Sergeant Hollister had training in detecting suicidal inmates; (5) Sergeant Hollister placed M r. Belden in a single-person cell; (6) M r. Belden plugged the toilet in his new cell; (7) Officer Roberts told Sergeant Hollister about M r. Belden’s continued insubordination between 4:00 and 6:40 p.m.; (8) Sergeant Hollister instructed Officer Roberts to remove the paper from M r. Belden’s cell window and transfer him to Cell 14; (9) Cell 14 was the suicide watch cell; and (10) Sergeant Hollister never followed-up with Officer Roberts to check on the situation with M r. Belden. Id. at 346-49. M uch of this evidence has no bearing on whether Sergeant Hollister knew that M r. Belden was suicidal. For example, the magistrate judge noted that there was no evidence that Sergeant Hollister was aware of the suicidal behavior observed by M r. Belden’s cellmates. Indeed, the inmates uniformly stated that they had not told any jail officials about their observations because they did not believe M r. Belden was suicidal. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge believed that a jury could find that: [I]f the jailers had been properly monitoring the inmates, the jailers would have heard Belden talk about suicide, would have observed Belden give away his food, would have watched Belden repeatedly rock back and forth on his bed, and would have noticed Belden tying his shoelaces together to test the ability of the shoelaces to hold his body weight. Id. at 350. This is hardly a proper inference to be drawn from the evidence - 17 - because it presumes that jailers have a constitutional duty to monitor inmates constantly. However, jailers are neither obligated nor able to watch every inmate at every minute of every day. The record is clear that Sergeant Hollister and his colleagues w ere not aware of the strange behavior described by M r. Belden’s cellmates. Under these circumstances, we would not permit a jury to infer that their failure to notice contributed to the “higher degree of fault than negligence” required for deliberate indifference. Berry v. City of M uskogee, 900 F.2d 1489, 1495 (10th Cir. 1990). W ith respect to the letter from M s. Renz, Sergeant Hollister testified that: A. He received a letter through the mail. It had been logged in by the jailers. Q. That letter, did anyone at the jail look at that before they gave it to him? A. Apparently so because the other dayshift jailer had mentioned it to me that . . . [M s. Renz] w anted to know why he w ouldn’t come to the window when she honked. Q. Did you ever observe that letter? A. I don’t remember. I Aplt. App. at 99; see also II Aplt. App. at 269. The letter is not in the record, and nothing in the record further illuminates its contents. Nevertheless, the magistrate judge seemingly presumed that it was a “Dear John” letter. This is pure speculation that finds no support in the record. According to Deputy Brammer, M s. Renz arrived at the hospital soon after M r. Belden was taken there. - 18 - II Aplt. App. at 290. She told the emergency room physician that she had spoken with M r. Belden the day before and that “[h]e told her that he loved her but did not make any suggestion that he might be particularly depressed or suicidal.” Id. at 320. From this evidence, a jury would have no basis for inferring that there was anything amiss in M r. Belden’s relationship with M s. Renz, let alone that the defendants were aware of it and deliberately indifferent to its effect on his mental state. Sergeant Hollister admitted that M r. Belden was generally a well-behaved inmate prior to August 14, 2002, and he agreed that a sudden shift in behavior can be a harbinger of suicide. I Aplt. App. at 98. However, he testified unequivocally that M r. Belden’s behavior did not dramatically change on the day he ended his life, and he viewed M r. Belden’s conduct as a disciplinary issue only. Id. at 98-99, 106. He explained: “I didn’t know he w as suicidal. . . . [H ]e was just being uncooperative because he didn’t want to be removed from that cell because I believe that that [sic] window had been altered to get contraband into the facility, so he didn’t want to move because of possibly getting contraband.” Id. at 106. Sergeant Hollister further testified that, in light of his drug history, M r. Belden could be expected to be angry about being moved into a cell in which he would not be able to receive contraband. Id. Still, “[h]e wasn’t that upset when I moved him. He argued the point. He said well I don’t want to move. . . . He was never out of control. He did not yell or scream.” Id. - 19 - Nevertheless, Sergeant Hollister later ordered Officer Roberts to move M r. Belden to Cell 14, the suicide watch cell. Id. at 110. He also chose not to call Officer Roberts to verify that his orders had been carried out because “I didn’t believe there would be a problem w ith him later. If he had a second jailer or an officer [with O fficer R oberts] I didn’t feel there was going to be a problem. H e had already complied when two people were there.” Id. at 103. Certainly, a jury would be entitled to disbelieve Sergeant Hollister’s testimony. However, the rigorous deliberate indifference standard requires knowledge that an inmate is suicidal or a risk that is so obvious and substantial that knowledge can be inferred. W e would not permit a jury to infer knowledge simply from the fact that Sergeant Hollister instructed Officer Roberts to move M r. Belden to Cell 14 because it is undisputed that Cell 14 was not solely used as a suicide w atch cell. M oreover, the record contains no evidence that M r. Belden’s behavior was unusual for an inmate, especially an inmate who had been deprived of his access to contraband and moved to an isolated cell without a working television. Sergeant Hollister’s suicide prevention training left him sensitive to clues of possible suicide, but there is no evidence that M r. Belden exhibited any of these tendencies. He simply was not an obvious suicide risk. Because there is no evidence that Sergeant Hollister considered M r. Belden suicidal, he could not have been deliberately indifferent to the risk of suicide. Accordingly, we conclude that he is entitled to qualified immunity. - 20 -