Court Opinion

ID: 9501693
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 19:36:37.738981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:43.899662
License: Public Domain

KETHLEDGE, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority on all but one issue. Specifically, I would affirm the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Westgate. Unlike Dye&emdash;who I think pres*541ents a close case, but who at least showed concern by putting Smith in a padded cell and calling Dr. Stickney — Westgate basically took no action at all during his four-hour shift on the night before Smith died. I also think he had ample time to observe Smith’s condition, and that Stickney’s “advice” to Dye — which was dubious to begin with — was becoming pretty stale by the end of Westgate’s shift. Thus, I agree with the district court that “[a] jury could conclude that Westgate’s delay in providing medical care to Smith under the circumstances could constitute deliberate indifference.”
On that issue, then, I respectfully dissent. Otherwise I concur in the majority’s opinion.