Opinion ID: 673674
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: deliberate indifference to ward's risk of suicide

Text: 24 Although it is undisputed that Holmes had no knowledge of Ward prior to booking him in the early morning hours of December 11, 1987, Plaintiff Ward argues that information Holmes learned after he came into contact with Ward should have indicated to him that Ward suffered from suicidal tendencies. Plaintiff Ward first asserts that a scar across Ward's wrist was readily observable and that Holmes should have noticed it during his routine booking of Ward. However, even if Holmes had noticed the scar, his failure to recognize that it was the result of a previous suicide attempt amounted at most to simple negligence. 5 Deliberate indifference, not negligence, is required to establish a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Freedman v. City of Allentown, Pa., 853 F.2d 1111, 1116 (3d Cir.1988) ([A]ssum[ing] that a reasonably competent prison official should have known and identified [scars shown to them by the detainee] as 'suicide hesitation cuts,' ... the failure to recognize them as such, without more, amounts only to negligence and therefore fails to support a claim under section 1983.). 25 Plaintiff Ward next points to Ward's statement that his bicycle should be given to a deserving person. It is undisputed that Holmes was unaware of any perceived value of Ward's bicycle and that the way Ward made the statement was consistent with a recognition that he would be incarcerated for an extended period for burglary. In addition, only minutes later, Ward inquired of Holmes about placing telephone calls to his wife to arrange bail and to his employer to inform him that he would not be reporting for work. Under these circumstances, Holmes' failure to appreciate the significance of Ward's statement concerning the bicycle as indicating suicidal tendencies on Ward's part was not evidence of deliberate indifference. 26 Plaintiff Ward also argues that Holmes knew that alcoholism puts one at increased risk of suicide and that Holmes could have easily discovered that Ward had a drinking problem. Nevertheless, the evidence is undisputed that Holmes was not present during Ward's confession, in which he indicated that he had a drinking problem, nor was Holmes otherwise aware of the problem. In addition, this court has rejected the argument that officers have a duty to screen for suicidal tendencies. See Belcher, 898 F.2d at 34-35. Thus, Holmes had no duty to ascertain whether Ward had a drinking problem. 27 Finally, Plaintiff Ward submitted the deposition testimony of Gordon C. Kamka, Director of the Facilities Review Panel for the State of West Virginia, who opined that the actions of the officers evinced deliberate indifference to the detainees' risk of suicide. With respect to Holmes, the only officer directly involved in the Ward action, Kamka opined simply that his opinion was the same as the one he had previously given with respect to the officers involved in the Leitzsey proceedings. For the reasons set forth more fully below, Kamka's testimony does not raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Officer Holmes was deliberately indifferent to a risk of suicide by Ward. Thus, we conclude that Holmes is entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff Ward's claim that he was deliberately indifferent to Ward's serious risk of suicide. 28