Opinion ID: 204108
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Standard in Factual Context

Text: In this case, Nelson was aware of the dangers associated with the BSH patients generally and the patients housed in Max 2. He was aware of the security rule that the patients in Max 2 were not allowed to stay in their rooms except during the count because of the risk of harm, in particular the risk of suicide, when patients were out of view of the staff.4 Nelson was also aware that, despite the security rule, a long-standing practice existed which allowed patients to stay in their rooms and to visit in each 4 The Moshers raise a new argument on appeal, contending that Nelson violated the Phase Treatment Program at BSH by allowing the patients to stay in their rooms and visit in other rooms during the period between the morning count and lunch. They contend that Nelson’s disregard of the Phase Treatment Program is further evidence of his deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of serious harm related to that practice. Because the Moshers failed to raise that theory below, it is waived here. See, e.g., In re Pharm. Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 582 F.3d 156, 183 (1st Cir. 2009). The exceptions to waiver do not apply in the circumstances of this case. Cf. Guillemard-Ginorio, 585 F.3d at 517 (reaching abstention issue despite possible waiver). Even if the Moshers’ Phase Treatment Program theory were considered, however, it would not change the outcome. -12- others’ rooms during the short period between the end of morning count and lunch. When patients were in their rooms or in other patients’ rooms they were subject to reduced supervision because they could be out of the view and earshot of the staff. Although the visiting practice had been long-standing, no problems or incidents related to the practice had been reported to Nelson. In addition, Nelson had no specific information about Burns, nor any reason to suspect that Burns might attack Mosher, nor any reason to believe that Mosher was particularly vulnerable to attack.5 For purposes of qualified immunity, we must decide, given the state of the law in 2004, whether a reasonable official in Nelson’s position, with his knowledge of the circumstances that existed in Max 2 when Burns killed Mosher, would have understood that the practice of allowing patients to visit in other patients’ rooms following morning count presented a substantial risk of serious harm to the patients. The district court concluded that, given the circumstances in Burrell, the law was not clearly established that failure to change the visiting practice would constitute a violation of Mosher’s constitutional rights. The district court held that Nelson was entitled to qualified immunity. 5 Specific information and warnings about inmates are components of the overall circumstances that contribute to a determination of deliberate indifference. See, e.g., Giroux, 178 F.3d at 34. -13- We agree. No case had held that the same circumstances that occurred at BSH or materially similar circumstances constituted a Fourteenth Amendment violation. In addition, the cases addressing a detainee’s right to be free of punishment before conviction did not clearly apply to the circumstances that existed in Max 2 in August of 2004. It was not clearly established law that in the absence of a history of violence or individualized threats, a prison official’s failure to discontinue a long practice of a brief period of unsupervised visits was deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm to a patient. A reasonable official in Nelson’s place, given the circumstances and the legal standard, could have believed that allowing the practice to continue would not lead to events that would violate a patient’s rights. Therefore, Nelson is entitled to qualified immunity.
The Moshers contend that Commissioner Dennehy violated their son’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by supervisory acquiescence and gross negligence in understaffing the Max 2 unit at BSH. The Moshers contend BSH was understaffed in 2004, when their son was murdered, that the Max 2 unit should have had five or six officers, and that understaffing was a system-wide problem for the Department of Corrections. At the time of the murder, however, -14- the BSH staffing analysis required three officers in Max 2, and four officers were on duty. Without accepting the proposition that understaffing alone can establish deliberate indifference, on the facts here, a reasonable official in Dennehy’s position could have reasonably believed that staffing that met the BSH recommendations was sufficient to avoid constitutional violations. Therefore, Dennehy is entitled to qualified immunity.