Opinion ID: 6331735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deputy Scalise

Text: Next, we turn to Deputy Scalise. We find he was unaware of the risk to Ms. Burgaz, so we conclude the Estate has not plausibly alleged he was deliberately indifferent to her medical needs. SHU is “a secure housing unit for inmates with higher needs,” id. at 14, ¶ 47, and the SHU “dayroom itself is under constant video monitoring,” id. at 16, ¶ 57. - 13 - Appellate Case: 21-1049 Document: 010110671118 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 14 As we noted previously, Deputy Scalise knew some information about Ms. Burgaz because it was available on Tiburon and shared by deputies at the beginning of shifts. Specifically, he knew Ms. Burgaz (1) had a history of mental illnesses and drug addiction, (2) had a history of suicidal tendencies, (3) had attempted suicide during a previous detention at the same facility, and (4) was currently being detained somewhere in the SHU. But Deputy Scalise’s knowledge was insufficient to infer he had actual knowledge of Ms. Burgaz’s risk of harm. Although he may have known she had a history that indicated a higher risk of suicide, he lacked knowledge of other facts that would have clued him in to her imminent and specific danger. And without actual knowledge Ms. Burgaz was suicidal at that time and at an immediate risk, he could not have been deliberately indifferent, as opposed to merely negligent, by failing to take the extra few seconds to look in the dayroom. The immediate risk of suicide was not obvious to Deputy Scalise. At most, he knew Ms. Burgaz was a detainee at the jail who had a history of mental illness, substance abuse, and a previous suicide attempt at the same jail. The Estate does not allege Deputy Scalise and Ms. Burgaz had any interactions where he may have obviously noticed her risk of harm. And as with Deputy Pesapane, there are no allegations Ms. Burgaz expressed a desire to harm herself or that she was on suicide watch. Accordingly, we conclude he was not deliberately indifferent to Ms. Burgaz’s medical needs. - 14 - Appellate Case: 21-1049 Document: 010110671118 Date Filed: 04/14/2022 Page: 15