Opinion ID: 6349389
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Deprivation of Medical Care Claim

Text: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires government officials to provide medical aid to individuals who have been injured during an arrest. City of Revere v. Mass. Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983). To succeed on a claim for deprivation of medical care, a plaintiff must prove (1) the existence of an objectively serious medical need, and (2) that the officer was deliberately indifferent to that need. Valderrama v. Rousseau, 780 F.3d 1108, 1116 (11th Cir. 2015). There is no dispute here that a gunshot wound is an objectively serious medical need. To prove deliberate indifference, the “plaintiff must present, for each officer, evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that (1) the officer was aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, (2) the officer actually drew that inference, (3) the officer disregarded the risk of serious harm, and (4) the officer’s conduct amounted to more than gross negligence.” Id. An officer may act with deliberate indifference by delaying the treatment of a serious medical need. McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1255 (11th Cir. 1999). 3 “The tolerable length of delay in 3The standards for assessing deliberate indifference under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments are the same. See Lancaster v. Monroe Cnty., 116 USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 13 of 58 18-12371 Opinion of the Court 13 providing medical attention depends on the nature of the medical need and the reason for the delay.” Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265, 1273 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam), abrogated on other grounds by Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 395 (2015). “[W]hen officers intentionally delay seeking treatment for a lifethreatening injury, they act with deliberate indifference.” Valderrama, 780 F.3d at 1121 (emphasis added). A jury can also infer deliberate indifference when an officer fails to justify or explain a delay in medical treatment. See Bozeman, 422 F.3d at 1273; Brown v. Hughes, 894 F.2d 1533, 1538 (11th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). Wade argues that Daniels, Jones, and Wilson violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights by delaying in seeking medical treatment for his gunshot wounds for four minutes. We agree. There is no question that the investigators knew that Wade had been shot in the head and that a substantial risk of serious harm existed. And viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Wade, a jury could reasonably conclude that the investigators were deliberately indifferent to that harm. F.3d 1419, 1425 n.6 (11th Cir. 1997) (“We have held that the minimum standard for providing medical care to a pre-trial detainee under the Fourteenth Amendment is the same as the minimum standard required by the Eighth Amendment for a convicted prisoner; both the right to due process and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment are violated by a government official’s deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”), overruled on other grounds by LeFrere v. Quezada, 588 F.3d 1317, 1317–18 (11th Cir. 2009). USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 14 of 58 14 Opinion of the Court 18-12371 To start, a jury could find that there was a four-minute delay in seeking medical care. Wade says that he was shot at 2:03 p.m., and that the investigators waited until 2:07 p.m. to call for an ambulance. Although the investigators dispute the timing of the shots to suggest there was no delay, Wilson claimed in his statement that the investigators noticed Wade pointing his gun and that Daniels responded by firing his weapon at “approximately 1403.” And the CAD report shows that an investigator communicated “Shots Fired” and requested EMS at 2:07 p.m., and that an investigator communicated that Wade had been shot in the head at 2:08 p.m. Therefore, there is at least a dispute of material fact as to the timing that must be resolved by a jury. A jury could also infer that the investigators’ delay was deliberately indifferent because they provided no explanation for it. Although the investigators claim that Beach provided medical care by pressing on Wade’s gunshot wounds, this neither justifies nor explains the delay in requesting real medical attention, much like applying a Band-Aid would neither justify nor explain a delay in seeking medical attention for a stab wound. See, e.g., Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 769 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir. 1985) (“Although the plaintiff has been provided with aspirin, this may not constitute adequate medical care. If, ‘deliberate indifference caused an easier and less efficacious treatment’ to be provided, the defendants have violated the plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment rights by failing to provide adequate medical care.”). And even though a four-minute delay may seem short, this court has explained that evaluating a delay in providing medical attention for life- USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 15 of 58 18-12371 Opinion of the Court 15 threatening injuries “is especially time-sensitive and must ordinarily be measured not in hours, but in a few minutes.” See Valderrama, 780 F.3d at 1120 (emphasis added) (quoting Bozeman, 422 F.3d at 1273). Here, the investigators provide no justification for why it took eleven investigators four minutes to call an ambulance when Beach had searched, handcuffed, and restrained Wade. And the investigators have failed to point the court to any evidence in the record providing an explanation for what could have preoccupied the investigators while Wade had three gunshot wounds and his mouth filled with blood. Thus, the delay in requesting treatment, coupled with the investigators’ failure to provide any explanation for that delay, could lead a jury to reasonably infer that Daniels, Jones, and Wilson were deliberately indifferent to Wade’s serious medical need. See Bozeman, 422 F.3d at 1273. From a different angle, a jury could reasonably infer that the investigators intentionally delayed seeking medical attention for Wade. Wade claims that Daniels said, “I shot that motherfucker in the head,” and that “mother-fucker will die any [] minute.” And after waiting four minutes to ask for ambulance, it took an extra minute for the investigators to report that Wade had been shot in the head. From this evidence, a reasonable jury could infer that the investigators intentionally delayed seeking medical attention to see if Wade would die of his injuries. To be sure, a reasonable jury could conclude that four minutes was a reasonable amount of time for the investigators to wait to request an ambulance. But it could also conclude just the opposite; whether because the investigators failed to justify their USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 16 of 58 16 Opinion of the Court 18-12371 delay or because they intentionally delayed, a jury could reasonably conclude that Daniels, Jones, and Wilson acted with deliberate indifference. And for that reason, we must conclude that Wade has met his burden at this stage to show that those three investigators violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Even though Wade met his burden that Daniels, Jones, and Wilson violated Wade’s Fourteenth Amendment rights, we conclude that there was no established law on how long before officers must request medical care for a suspect that has been shot to constitute deliberate indifference. Although it is clearly established that an officer cannot ignore an individual’s serious medical condition, Brown, 894 F.2d at 1538, we have not drawn a bright-line rule on how long before officers must seek medical care for a suspect that has been shot to constitute deliberate indifference, Valderrama, 780 F.3d at 1120. In Valderrama, after considering all the facts of the case, we found that Valderrama proved a deliberate indifference claim because the officers “delayed Valderrama’s medical care for more than ten minutes for no good or legitimate reason.” Id. (emphasis added). We specifically noted that “a three and half minute delay standing alone may be insufficient to establish deliberate indifference.” Id. Accordingly, Daniels, Jones, and Wilson did not have fair warning that their four minute delay in not requesting medical care after a shooting involving a suspect could rise to a deliberate indifference claim. Sebastian, 918 F.3d at 1311. Thus, Daniels, Jones, and Wilson are entitled to qualified immunity on Wade’s deprivation of medical care claim. USCA11 Case: 18-12371 Date Filed: 06/13/2022 Page: 17 of 58 18-12371 Opinion of the Court 17