Opinion ID: 2972888
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lieutenant Thomson

Text: The plaintiff contends that Thomson acted with deliberate indifference to Bradley’s suicidal tendencies because he did not see to it that Ferndale’s policies were implemented. (Appellee’s Brief at 42.) Specifically, the district court held that Thomson’s failure to remove the blankets from Bradley’s cell and establish 15 minute checks once he suspected that Bradley was suicidal created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Thomson acted with deliberate indifference. (J.A. at 399-400.) The record indicates that upon hearing Bradley’s remark, Bradley was labeled as a suicide risk and Thomson made provisions to expedite Bradley’s transfer to the County Jail. (J.A. at 57.) When the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department requested that Bradley’s transfer be postponed until the following Monday, Thomson responded that the transfer would have to be completed that night. (J.A. at 123.) The request itself stated: Would normally not have a problem holding until Monday, but htis (sic) prisoner is intoxicated, has Hepatitis C, and is suicidal, and we are in the middle of a barricaded gunman. If possible, we would appreciate it if you would pick him up as soon as you can, as we are very short personnel due to the situation. Please advise us what you are going to do. (J.A. at 123.) At some point after placing Bradley in his cell, Thomson looked at the monitors and saw Bradley lying on his bunk with the blankets. (J.A. at 317-18.) Finally, after Thomson learned that Bradley had attempted suicide, he entered Bradley’s cell and, despite knowing that Bradley had Hepatitis C, he began to administer CPR. (J.A. at 67.) Again, Thomson’s actions do not evidence a conscious disregard of Bradley’s suicidal tendencies. Thomson recognized Bradley’s condition and made provisions to have him transferred to a facility which was better equipped to provide for his needs. (J.A. at 57.) While removing the -14- blankets and imposing 15 minute checks on Bradley’s cell may have succeeded in preventing Bradley from committing suicide, Article 7 of Ferndale’s Policies and Procedures does not specifically require these acts. (J.A. at 287-88.) Section II (B)(4) of Article 7 provides that “the duty command officer may exercise one of the following alternatives” if his preliminary evaluation indicates a potential suicide. (J.A. at 287-88.) As noted above, when an official fails to act in the face of an obvious risk of which she should have known but did not, the official has not inflicted punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer, 511 U.S. at 837-38. Therefore, the district court erred in denying Thomson’s motion for summary judgment. Finally, because the plaintiff has not established that the above defendants violated Bradley’s constitutional rights, there is no need to determine whether the right violated was clearly established.