Legal Document

Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STANLEY TAYLOR, ET AL. v. KAREN BARKES, ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS THIRD CIRCUIT No. 14–939. Decided June 1, 2015 PER CURIAM. Christopher Barkes, “a troubled man with a long history of mental health and substance abuse problems,” was arrested on November 13, 2004, for violating his proba- tion. Barkes First Correctional Medical, Inc., 766 F.3d 307, 310–311 (CA3 2014). taken to the How- ard R. Young Institution in Wilmington, Delaware. As part Barkes’s intake, nurse who worked contractor providing healthcare at conducted medical evaluation. Id., 311. The evaluation included screening designed assess whether an inmate suicidal. employed suicide form based model developed by National Commission Health Care (NCCHC) 1997. listed 17 risk factors. If inmate’s responses nurse’s observations indicated that least eight were present, or if certain serious factors would notify physician initiate preven- tion measures. 311, 313. disclosed he had psychiatric treatment medication. He also attempted 2003, though not—as far as record indicates—that done so three other occasions. And not cur- rently thinking about killing himself. Because only two apparent, gave “routine” referral services did any special prevention 2 TAYLOR BARKES placed cell Despite what told nurse, evening called wife her “can’t live this way anymore” going kill inform anyone call. next morning, correctional officers observed awake behaving normally 10:45, 10:50, 11:00 a.m. At 11:35 a.m., however, officer arrived deliver lunch discovered hanged himself sheet. 311–312. children, respondents here, brought suit under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U.S. C. §1983, against various entities individuals connected Insti- tution, they claimed violated civil rights failing prevent suicide. issue here is claim petitioners Stanley Taylor, Commissioner Delaware Department Correction (DOC), Raphael Williams, Institution’s warden. Although it undis- puted neither petitioner personally interacted knew condition before death, alleged Taylor Williams constitutional right be free from cruel unusual punishment. Medi- cal, 2008 WL 523216, *7 (D Del., Feb. 27, 2008). They so, according respondents, super- vise monitor private provided treatment—including intake screening—at Institution. Petitioners moved summary judgment ground entitled qualified immu- nity, but District Court denied motion. 2012 2914915, *8–*12 July 17, 2012). A divided panel Appeals Third Circuit affirmed. majority first determined cognizable theory supervisory liability (a decision upon which we express no view). F.3d, 316–325. then turned two- 3 step immunity inquiry, asking “first, plaintiff suffered deprivation stat- utory right; second, ‘clearly established’ time misconduct.” 326. Taking these questions reverse order, held clearly established death incarcerated individual Eighth Amendment “right proper implementation adequate protocols.” 327. concluded there material factual disputes adequately supervise prison. There evidence, noted, contractor’s process comply NCCHC’s latest standards, required contract. Those standards allegedly revised professional, nurse. evidence have access probation records (which shed light history), been short-staffing increase profits. 330–331. Judge Hardiman dissented. relevant con- cluded nity because relied departure case law never today.” 345. petitioned certiorari. We grant petition violation law. “Qualified shields government officials damages unless official statu- tory challenged conduct.” Reichle Howards, 4 566 ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., 5). “To established, must sufficiently clear every reasonable understood doing violates right.” Ibid. (brackets internal quotation marks omitted). “When properly applied, [quali- fied immunity] protects all plainly incompetent those knowingly violate law.” Ashcroft al-Kidd, 563 (2011) 12) (internal quota- “We do require directly point, existing precedent question beyond debate.” 9). best defined “an person’s This purported right, how- ever, 2004 debate unconstitutionality procedures, implemented medi- cal contractor. No establishes pro- tocols. even discusses protocols. “to extent ‘robust consensus cases persuasive authority’ ” Courts “could itself establish federal respondent alleges,” City County San Francisco Sheehan, 16), weight authority suggested such exist. See, e.g., Comstock McCrary, 273 693, 702 (CA6 2001) (“the care needs does encompass screened correctly suicidal tendencies” omitted)); Tittle Jefferson Cty. Comm’n, 10 1535, 1540 (CA11 1994) (alleged “weaknesses [suicide] process, 5 training deputies[,] supervision prison- ers” “amount showing deliberate indiffer- ence toward prisoners”); Burns Galveston, 905 F.2d 100, 104 (CA5 1990) (rejecting proposition “the detainees includes absolute psychological screening”); Belcher Oliver, 898 32, 34–35 (CA4 (“The general pretrial receive basic place jail responsibility screen detainee tendencies.”). nonetheless found its own decisions, both stemming same case. Assuming sake argument can “clearly established” circuit prece- dent despite disagreement courts appeals, decisions estab- lished issue. first, Colburn I, said “know should know particular vulner- ability inmate,” obligation “not act reckless indifference vulnerability.” Upper Darby Twp., 838 663, 669 (1988). say, detention facilities implement procedures identify vulnerable inmates, let alone specify suffice. later acknowledged I ’s use phrase “or know”—which might seem nod requirement some kind—was erroneous Farmer Brennan, 511 825 (1994), re- quires actual awareness risk. See Serafin Johnstown, 53 Fed. Appx. 211, 213 2002). Nor II put notice possible violation. reiter- ated vul- nerability recklessly indifferent vulnerability. 946 6 F. 2d 1017, 1023 (1991). But mini- mum protocols use. In fact, revealed booking “include[d] formal physical screening,” ibid., yet ruled defendants claims, see id., 1025–1031. short, measures contained shortcomings allege, books Novem- ber made overseeing system Constitution. Because, very least, contraven- ing law, are immunity. reversed. It ordered.

Classification Label: 1