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

Heading: deliberate indifference to leitzsey's risk of suicide

Text: 33 Although it is undisputed that Officer Stoudemire had no knowledge of Leitzsey's suicidal tendencies prior to arresting him, Plaintiff Leitzsey asserts that Stoudemire was deliberately indifferent to a serious risk of suicide by Leitzsey because Leitzsey had large, recent scars on both of his arms; Stoudemire witnessed a conversation between Leitzsey and his mother that upset Leitzsey; and as reflected on the booking report, Stoudemire knew that Leitzsey had a history of drug use. In addition, Plaintiff Leitzsey relies on the fact that Leitzsey's prior suicide attempt was referenced in incident reports on file with the City of Cayce. 34 Stoudemire's failure to recognize that the scars on Leitzsey's arms, Leitzsey's telephone call to his mother, and Leitzsey's history of drug use indicated suicidal tendencies on his part was at most simple negligence. Moreover, because there is no requirement that officers screen detainees for a risk of suicide, Stoudemire's failure to investigate the prior incident reports does not amount to deliberate indifference. Thus, because Stoudemire had no reason to know that Leitzsey had suicidal tendencies, Stoudemire is entitled to qualified immunity.
35 Plaintiff Leitzsey maintains that Officer McFaddin was deliberately indifferent to her son's serious risk of suicide for essentially the same reasons as were asserted for Stoudemire--scars on Leitzsey's arms, Leitzsey's history of drug use as indicated on the booking report, and McFaddin's knowledge that Leitzsey had an angry conversation with his mother. Again, this evidence is insufficient to show that McFaddin had any reason to believe that Leitzsey posed a risk of suicide. 36 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we conclude that McFaddin is entitled to qualified immunity.
37 Plaintiff Leitzsey argues that Officer Findley was deliberately indifferent to Leitzsey's serious risk of suicide because Findley had the warrant and booking report, Leitzsey would not talk to Findley when he checked on him, and Findley knew that Leitzsey had an upsetting conversation with his mother. However, neither the arrest warrant nor the booking report indicated that Leitzsey was at risk for suicide. Further, failing to recognize Leitzsey's quiet demeanor or upsetting telephone call as indicators that Leitzsey was at risk for suicide was at most simple negligence. Thus, we conclude that Findley had no reason to suspect that Leitzsey presented a serious risk of suicide and that Findley is entitled to qualified immunity on the claim that he was deliberately indifferent to Leitzsey's risk of suicide.
38 Officers Wall and Tevepaugh had responded to prior incidents at the Leitzsey home and were aware of Leitzsey's suicidal tendencies. In addition, Officer Brown's approval of the incident report detailing Leitzsey's prior suicide attempt is sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Brown had prior knowledge of Leitzsey's suicidal tendencies. However, Plaintiff Leitzsey presented no evidence that these officers were aware that Leitzsey would be, or had been, taken into custody on May 27, 1989. Accordingly, the evidence cannot support a finding that these officers were deliberately indifferent to the risk that Leitzsey might commit suicide during his incarceration. Further, while in some instances a failure to relay information that a detainee is suicidal may amount to deliberate indifference, see Gordon, 971 F.2d at 1095, in the absence of any evidence tending to demonstrate that these officers were aware that Leitzsey would be, or had been, taken into custody, we cannot conclude that their failure to do so constituted deliberate indifference. 39 Finally, Plaintiff Leitzsey argues that these officers should have developed a general list of individuals with suicidal tendencies who might be detained in the future for reference by officers responsible for those incarcerated at the jail. However, Plaintiff Leitzsey cites no legal authority imposing such a duty. In the absence of a clearly established duty for the officers to do so, we conclude that they are entitled to qualified immunity. 7 40