Court Opinion

ID: 9945621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 01:00:32.615901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:34.655562
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20375            Document: 42-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________                                           FILED
                                                                               February 27, 2024
                                    No. 23-20375
                                                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                  Summary Calendar
                                                                                          Clerk
                                  ____________

Stacy Williams, on behalf of her minor grandson, J.J.,

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Andrew Williams; Joe Spradlin,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 4:23-CV-289
                   ______________________________

Before Smith, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
       Stacy Williams sued two paramedics under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an
allegedly inadequate response to her grandson’s medical emergency, result-
ing in his death. The district court dismissed on the basis of qualified immun-
ity. Finding no error, we affirm.
       We recount the facts as stated in plaintiff’s brief, assuming, for pres-

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20375         Document: 42-1        Page: 2     Date Filed: 02/27/2024

                                    No. 23-20375

ent purposes, that they are true:
            Here, Appellees (paramedics) came to Appellant’s home
       after Appellant called 9-1-1 because [her grandson] J.J. was in
       cardiac distress. J.J. was a survivor of “shaken baby syn-
       drome” and he had cerebral palsy. When Appellees responded
       they “called off” other emergency units that were responding
       to the 9-1-1 call. Yet when Appellees arrived at J.J.’s home,
       they refused to provide essential medical services. Although
       J.J. was unresponsive, Appellees disregarded their depart-
       mental policies and did not provide the required medical aid
       (such as CPR). After twenty-four minutes (and a threat by
       Appellant to take J.J. to the hospital on her own) Appellees pro-
       vided emergency care and then transported J.J. to the hospital.
       J.J. arrived at the hospital at 1:52 a.m. and hospital staff revived
       him at 2:04 a.m. J.J. must now be “fed through a tube.”
Appellant’s Opening Brief at 18–19.
       The appellant recognizes that she cannot prevail under this court’s
longstanding jurisprudence whereunder we do not recognize “state-created
danger” as a theory of liability for a claimed constitutional violation. Appel-
lant asks the court to use this case as a vehicle to adopt, for the first time, that
theory.
       We decline the invitation. It is a stretch to say that state actors
“created” the danger, given that the appellant’s grandson was in medical
distress, not caused by them, when they arrived. As alleged, any failure to
act sounds more in medical malpractice or negligence than in deliberate
indifference.
       It is possible that, at some point, this court will adopt the appellant’s
theory. Concluding that this is not the case for such a jurisprudential venture,
we AFFIRM the judgment of dismissal.

                                         2