Opinion ID: 4541298
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Officer Kimball

Text: Officer Kimball was present when Silvis was on the bridge, heard Silvis say he should have jumped and “Let’s do it again tomorrow,” removed Silvis’s shoes before locking the cell, and heard Silvis banging on his cell and yelling that his hand hurt, that he should have jumped, and that he wanted a nurse. As with the other three defendants, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that Officer Kimball was subjectively aware of the risk of suicide Silvis faced. See Hyatt, 843 F.3d at 178. Officer Kimball, per Plaintiffs’ allegations, was the one who prepared Silvis’s cell and gave him a blanket, despite his knowledge and training regarding suicidal detainees. This situation is on all fours with Jacobs where we declined to grant an officer qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage because he knew the detainee had attempted suicide at least once before, regarded the detainee as being at risk for suicide at all times of her detention, and yet still provided her with loose bedding. 228 F.3d at 396. Unlike in cases where we have found that the officer was not deliberately indifferent, Silvis never indicated that his suicidal ideation had subsided, see Flores, 124 F.3d at 738-39, nor did Officer Kimball have reason to believe Silvis would not be able to use the blanket to commit suicide, see Hare v. City of Corinth (Hare III), 135 F.3d 320, 329 (5th Cir. 1998). Here, all of Officer Kimball’s knowledge, training, and experience of Silvis indicated that Silvis was at risk of suicide and could use loose bedding to make that risk a reality. 7 Yet, Officer Kimball 7 Defendants argue that Officer Kimball did not have knowledge of this risk because Officer Kimball concluded that Silvis was “not serious” about committing suicide. We disagree. “Whether a prison official had the requisite knowledge of a substantial risk is a question of fact subject to demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial evidence.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. A jury could infer from Officer Kimball’s actions, like removing Silvis’s shoes, that he had the requisite knowledge that Silvis was at a serious risk of suicide. See Hyatt, 843 F.3d at 178 (despite detainee’s statement that he was not presently considering suicide and officer’s statement that he did not consider 13 Case: 17-41234 Document: 00515450818 Page: 14 Date Filed: 06/12/2020 No. 17-41234 provided him with a blanket. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Officer Kimball acted with deliberate indifference toward Silvis’s substantial risk of suicide.