Opinion ID: 2974910
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Doug Johnson.

Text: Plaintiff’s allegations and supporting testimony place Johnson, the captain and jail administrator, at the booking counter during Hollenbaugh’s arrival, and leaving at approximately 6:45 p.m. He observed Hollenbaugh enter the booking room and characterized his behavior as “lethargic” and “stumbling.” He heard Hollenbaugh talk and was present during the booking process, and, according to testimony proffered by plaintiff, would have witnessed Hollenbaugh being supported by the other officers and the blood pressure incident. Johnson recalled Hollenbaugh stating that he had the flu and was going to be sick, and the placement of the waste basket in front of Hollenbaugh. Prior to leaving, Johnson recommended that the other defendants put Hollenbaugh on a fifteen-minute observation schedule. 17 Case Nos. 06-3135, 06-3136, 06-3137, 06-3138, 06-3139 Hollenbaugh v. Maurer, et al. Undoubtedly, Johnson observed less than any of the other defendants did. Nevertheless, we conclude that “plaintiff set forth sufficient facts from which a trier of fact could conclude that there was objective awareness as to the seriousness of [Hollenbaugh]’s ailment, and a sufficient factual dispute as to whether [Johnson, the captain of the jail] . . . had the subjective knowledge that [his] acts or omissions amounted to deliberate indifference to [Hollenbaugh]’s serious medical needs.” Taylor, 104 F. App’x at 543. Although Johnson contends that his recommendation to place Hollenbaugh on a fifteenminute observation schedule should not evidence anything more than a need for observation, the district court held, and we agree, that it did provide some evidence that Johnson drew an inference that a serious medical condition was present. “In most cases in which the defendant is alleged to have failed to provide treatment, there is no testimony about what inferences the defendant in fact drew. Nonetheless, in those cases, a genuine issue of material fact as to deliberate indifference can be based on a strong showing on the objective component.” Estate of Carter, 408 F.3d at 313 (holding that a jury would be entitled to draw the inference that the officer was aware of medical need based on officer’s claims that he gave instruction that decedent was to go to the hospital). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s disposition with respect to Captain Johnson.