Opinion ID: 182013
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Pamela Sams

Text: We also conclude that Jerauld fails to allege facts showing that Sams was deliberately indifferent to Jerauld’s suicidal tendencies. In her deposition, Sams testified that she was aware that Jerauld was a suicide risk and that she believed him to be under a suicide watch. Based on these facts, a trier of fact could conclude that Sams inferred that Jerauld was at substantial risk of attempting suicide. However, Jerauld does not allege facts establishing that Sams disregarded that risk. On February 9, Jerauld requested that Sams have him released into a general population cell, and Sams responded that it was not her call to make. Although Jerauld should have been referred to a medical doctor if he was on a medical watch, Sams testified that medical watch and suicide watch were frequently confused by jail personnel. Because Sams thought that Jerauld had been deemed a suicide risk, she referred him to prison psychologist Kroger for an evaluation before Jerauld was released to the general population, and released him in accordance with Kroger’s evaluation. This was consistent with prison practice for prisoners on suicide watch. 1 In further support of his claim that Parker was aware that Jerauld was suicidal, Jerauld alleges that Parker also observed Jerauld in his isolation cell on February 9 based on entries in the observation log. Jerauld alleges that these entries show that Parker should have been on notice that Jerauld was a suicide risk. The entry corresponding to Parker noted that Jerauld was sitting quietly, standing, or sleeping when she observed him. Even if Parker identified Jerauld as the same inmate she had observed on February 9, and even if Parker would have thought Jerauld on a suicide rather than medical watch at that time, Jerauld does not allege facts showing that Parker’s actions could constitute deliberate indifference. 16 Sams visited Jerauld, monitored his condition, and released him to the general population after referring him for a psychological evaluation.2 Compare Linden, 167 F. App’x at 418–19 (holding that social worker did not act with deliberate indifference when she visited inmate during his incarceration, monitored his condition, and released him from suicide precautions in accordance with advice of the prison psychiatrist who evaluated the inmate) with Perez, 466 F.3d at 424–26 (holding that genuine issue of fact remained when caseworker—who had herself placed the inmate on elevated watch several times in response to his threats of suicide—assigned inmate to a single cell without consulting a prison psychiatrist). “Simply because [an official] may have been able to avert [an inmate’s] suicide by making a different decision—one that would have contravened the advice of a more learned expert—does not give rise to culpability under the Eighth Amendment.” Linden, 167 F. App’x at 418. Under the alleged facts, Sams did not exhibit deliberate indifference to Jerauld’s psychological needs.