Court Opinion

ID: 2963581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:12:24.471439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:43.200857
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1835

                           RICHARD MAHAN and FELICIA MAHAN,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                    PLYMOUTH COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                 Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                      _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             Matthew Cobb, with whom Law Firm of Matthew Cobb was on brief for
             ____________            ________________________
        appellants.
             James B. Lampke for appellee Town of Hull.
             _______________
             Matthew  J. Buckley, with whom  Law Office of  Matthew J. Buckley
             ___________________             _________________________________
        was on brief for appellee Walter Bouchie.
             Steven  M.   Walsh  for   appellee   Plymouth  County   Sheriff's
             __________________
        Department.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                  September 7, 1995
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    CYR,  Circuit  Judge.   On  November  14, 1989,  Walter
                    CYR,  Circuit  Judge.
                          ______________

          Bouchie,  a detective  with the  Town of  Hull Police  Department

          ("Hull  Police  Department"),  executed  a valid  arrest  warrant

          against plaintiff-appellant Richard Mahan ("Mahan") for  the rape

          of  Sheila Commesso.1  The arrest took place in Mahan's hatchback

          automobile.   Bouchie and  other officers searched  the hatchback

          incident to the arrest and damaged a cord over the hatch area and

          a pocket tape recorder in the car.  

                    Following  the  arrest, Mahan  was  taken  to the  Hull

          Police  Station for  "booking."    Once  the "booking"  had  been

          completed,  Bouchie  began  interrogating  Mahan  without  giving

          Miranda warnings.  See  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S.  436 (1966).
          _______            ___  _______    _______

          Mahan  asked  if he  had the  right  to speak  with  an attorney.

          Bouchie informed  him  that an  attorney  would be  appointed  at

          arraignment.   Mahan asserted a  right to remain  silent until an

          attorney was present.   Bouchie  then said, "[Y]ou  are going  to

          talk to me or I will lock you up in that cell down there, and you

          won't get  out."  When Mahan  would not relent, he  was placed in

          the holding cell.  No further questioning occurred.   

                    Within  hours of  the arrest,  a representative  of the

          Hull  Police Department  was sent  to Mahan's  home to pick  up a

          bottle  of medicine    Tegretol     which had  been prescribed in

          early  1989 for depression and  seizures caused by  a head injury
                              
          ____________________

               1The evidence and  inferences are related in  the light most
          favorable to Mahan, the party opposing judgment.  See Favorito v.
                                                            ___ ________
          Pannell, 27 F.3d 716, 719 (1st Cir. 1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a);
          _______
          Velez-Gomez v.  SMA Life Assur.  Co., 8 F.3d  873, 874 (1st  Cir.
          ___________     ____________________
          1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.  

                                          3

          Mahan sustained many years earlier.  The Tegretol bottle, clearly

          marked  with Mahan's name, the  name and telephone  number of the

          prescribing  physician, and  the dosage  to be  administered, was

          delivered to the Plymouth House of Corrections ("PHC") when Mahan

          was transferred  there  around 9:00  or  10:00 p.m.  on  Tuesday,

          November 14.  There is no record evidence that Mahan informed any

          corrections officer or other PHC personnel, prior to November 21,

          as to the actual symptoms he experienced while detained.  The PHC

          corrections  officers  repeatedly  refused Mahan's  requests  for

          Tegretol during the period November 14-21.2  

                    Mahan  first  arrived  at  PHC  late  Tuesday  evening,

          November  14, after  the  medical officer's  regular hours.   PHC

          corrections officers later informed  Mahan that a medical officer

          was present at PHC on  Tuesdays and Thursdays only.  On  November

          15  and 16,  Mahan was  taken to court  for arraignment  and bail

          review.  Thus, he was not seen by a medical  officer on Thursday,

          November  16, since he did not  return from court until after the

          medical officer  had left  for the  day.  Four  more days  passed

          before  a medical officer met with Mahan on Tuesday, November 21.

          In accordance  with PHC policy,  the medical officer  declined to

          administer Tegretol  to Mahan  without first contacting  the pre-

          scribing physician.  Within one or two  days after Mahan met with

          the medical officer on November 21, PHC administered the Tegretol

                              
          ____________________

               2PHC policy prohibits  administering prescription  medicines
          to a detainee without  clearance from a "medical officer"  and on
                                                                     ___
          days  the  detainee is  scheduled to  appear  in court.   Medical
          officers are corrections officers with some medical training.

                                          4

          to Mahan and his symptoms were alleviated. 

                    Although  Mahan was experiencing  severe depression and

          anxiety attacks, and  continuously complained to various  correc-

          tions  officers that he needed  the Tegretol, there  is no record

          evidence  that he ever informed PHC personnel that he was experi-

          encing these or any other symptoms  prior to November 21.  Nor is

          there any evidence that  PHC personnel ever witnessed,  or other-

          wise became aware  of, any such symptoms.  Mahan  testified to an

          anxiety attack on the  night of November 15, which  was witnessed

          by  a cellmate.3  A guard who  happened by the cell shortly after

          this  incident, inquired whether Mahan  was all right.   To which

          Mahan replied simply:  "I don't know.  I don't feel good."  Thus,

          there  is no evidence remotely  suggesting that PHC personnel had

          ever  been made aware  that Mahan's  condition might  warrant any

          deviation from the standard medical clearance policy. 

                    After  Mahan  was released  on bail,  he was  tried and

          acquitted, then initiated this section 1983 action, see 42 U.S.C.
                                                              ___

             1983, against  Detective  Bouchie and  the  Town of  Hull  for

          wrongful arrest and interrogation, and against PHC for wrongfully

          withholding  his prescription  medicine.   Felicia Mahan  filed a

          pendent  claim for  loss  of consortium.    Prior to  trial,  the

          district court  granted summary  judgment for  the Town of  Hull.

                              
          ____________________

               3The cellmate neither  testified nor  provided a  deposition
          concerning the  circumstances surrounding  any anxiety attack  or
          other symptom experienced by Mahan.  Mahan himself testified that
          he  asked his  wife to tell  his lawyer  that PHC  personnel were
          refusing to administer  Tegretol.  Yet the lawyer  neither testi-
          fied nor is there any evidence that he ever contacted PHC.  

                                          5

          The Mahans proceeded to trial on their claims against Bouchie and

          PHC. 

                    During the  trial on  liability, Mahan and/or  his wife

          testified to the above-described events.  In addition, before the

          district court ordered  judgment as  a matter of  law under  Rule

          50(a),  Mahan  proposed to  call  the  prescribing physician,  to

          testify that Mahan  had a  "serious medical  need" for  Tegretol.

          Rather  than admit  the proffered  testimony, the  district court

          presumed, for purposes of the Rule 50(a) motion, that Mahan had a

          "serious medical need" for Tegretol.  

                    Thereafter,  the district  court directed  verdicts for

          Bouchie  and PHC,  ruling that  Mahan had  proffered insufficient

          evidence  to establish an unconstitutional deprivation in connec-

          tion  with his arrest;  the Miranda claim  failed as  a matter of
                                      _______

          law,  since no  interrogation actually  occurred after  Mahan re-

          quested  an  attorney; and  PHC  had not  acted  with "deliberate

          indifference" in withholding Mahan's prescription medicine. 

                    A  decision to  grant summary  judgment is  reviewed de
                                                                         __

          novo, Velez-Gomez  v. SMA Life Assur.  Co., 8 F.3d 873,  874 (1st
          ____  ___________     ____________________

          Cir. 1993), as is a judgment entered as a matter of law, Favorito
                                                                   ________

          v. Pannell, 27 F.3d 716, 719 (1st Cir. 1994). 
             _______

          A.   The Arrest
          A.   The Arrest
               __________

                    Under section 1983, a municipality may be answerable in

          damages under  section 1983  to a  person who  is subjected to  a

          deprivation of his constitutional rights as  a result of official

          action taken pursuant to a "custom or usage" of the municipality.

                                          6

          See Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658,
          ___ ______    ____________________________________

          691 (1978).  Mahan claims that there was sufficient evidence that

          the Town  of Hull, by  "custom and usage,"  investigated criminal

          complaints inadequately, thereby causing arrests without probable

          cause.   He relies on  our decision  in Bordanaro v.  McLeod, 871
                                                  _________     ______

          F.2d 1151,  1157 (1st  Cir.) (single  incident  may provide  some
                                        ______  ________               ____

          proof of municipal policy where, inter  alia, large contingent of
                                           _____  ____

          municipal police  officers engaged  in concerted  assaultive con-
                                                 _________

          duct),  cert.  denied, 493  U.S.  820  (1989).   Bordanaro  held,
                  _____  ______                            _________

          however, that  evidence of a single incident  is insufficient, in
                                                                         __

          and  of itself, to establish a municipal "custom or usage" within
          ___  __ ______

          the meaning of Monell.  Id. at 1156-57.  
                         ______   ___

                    Mahan  has  not brought  his  case  near the  Bordanaro
                                                                  _________

          umbrella, let alone under it.   He produced no evidence of  prior

          incidents of inadequate investigation  by the Hull Police Depart-

          ment.  Nor has he introduced direct evidence of improper investi-

          gatory  methods or practices employed by the police in this case.

          Thus, we discern no error in the district court decision granting

          summary  judgment on the section  1983 claim against  the Town of

          Hull.  

          B.   The Arrest and Search
          B.   The Arrest and Search
               _____________________

                    As there was insufficient  evidence to support a trial-

          worthy  claim against the Town  of Hull, there  was no actionable

          section 1983 claim against  Detective Bouchie relating to Mahan's

          arrest.  Mahan presented no evidence that Bouchie acted unreason-

          ably  in executing the valid arrest warrant, nor in effecting the

                                          7

          arrest and contemporaneous automobile  search.  See United States
                                                          ___ _____________

          v.  Doward, 41 F.3d 789, 791 (1st  Cir. 1994) (police entitled to
              ______

          search  hatch-area of  automobile  incident to  lawful arrest  of

          driver), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1716 (1995).  The damage to the
                   _____ ______

          hatchback cord  and the  tape recorder,  see supra  p. 2,  do not
                                                   ___ _____

          establish  a trialworthy  Fourth Amendment  "unreasonable" search

          claim.   There was  no error  in the district  court decision  to

          direct judgment as a matter of law in favor of Bouchie.  

          C.   The Miranda Claim
          C.   The Miranda Claim
               _________________

                    Mahan claims that  Bouchie violated his Miranda  rights
                                                            _______

          by refusing to read the required Miranda warnings and threatening
                                           _______

          to place  him in the  holding cell if  he declined to  respond to

          questioning without an attorney present.  We do not agree.  

                    An "accused must be adequately and effectively apprised

          of  his rights  and the  exercise of those  rights must  be fully

          honored."   Miranda, 384 U.S. at  467.  Although Bouchie  did not
                      _______

          give the required  Miranda warnings, it is undisputed  that Mahan
                             _______

          made  no statements  pertinent to  the Commesso  investigation in

          response to interrogation.  Upon Mahan's assertion that he wished

          to have an attorney  present during interrogation, Bouchie ceased

          all  interrogation.  Every court  of appeals which  has spoken to

          this matter in  similar circumstances has held that no actionable

          section 1983  claim lay.  See Weaver v. Brenner, 40 F.3d 527, 535
                                    ___ ______    _______

          (2d Cir. 1994); Wiley v. Doory,  14 F.3d 993, 996 (4th Cir. 1994)
                          _____    _____

          (Powell, J., sitting by designation); Mahoney v. Kesery, 976 F.2d
                                                _______    ______

          1054, 1061-62 (7th Cir.  1992); Cooper v. Dupnik, 963  F.2d 1220,
                                          ______    ______

                                          8

          1242-44 (9th Cir.), cert.  denied, 113 S. Ct. 407  (1992); Warren
                              _____  ______                          ______

          v.  City of Lincoln, Neb., 864 F.2d  1436, 1442 (8th Cir.), cert.
              _____________________                                   _____

          denied, 490 U.S. 1091  (1989); Bennett v. Passic, 545  F.2d 1260,
          ______                         _______    ______

          1263 (10th Cir. 1976).   We now join  their ranks.  There  was no

          actionable  section 1983  claim relating  to the  alleged Miranda
                                                                    _______

          violation.4

          D.   The Eighth Amendment Claim
          D.   The Eighth Amendment Claim
               __________________________

                    Mahan  challenges the  district court  ruling directing

          judgment as  a matter  of law  on the claim  that PHC  refused to

          administer his Tegretol  for seven days.   This claim  implicates

          the  established  PHC  clearance  policy  preventing  corrections

          officers  from administering  prescribed  medicines on  days  the

          detainee is scheduled to  appear in court and until  permitted to
                                                    ___

          do so by a "medical officer."  

                    Eighth Amendment claims  by pretrial detainees alleging

          denials  of medical  assistance essentially  turn on  whether the

          challenged official action constituted  "deliberate indifference"

          to  a "serious  medical need".   Consolo v. George,  58 F.3d 791,
                                           _______    ______

          793-94 (1st Cir. 1995); Bowen v. City of Manchester, 966 F.2d 13,
                                  _____    __________________

                              
          ____________________

               4Although  there can be no question  that the alleged threat
          by Bouchie to  keep Mahan in the holding cell  until he responded
          to  further questions    assuming  it were credited  by the fact-
          finder    would be  fully deserving of official sanction,  it did
          not rise to the egregious level of police misconduct required for
          an actionable   1983  claim absent evidence that it  succeeded in
          overbearing  Mahan's will  to exercise  his Miranda rights.   Cf.
                                                      _______           __
          Cooper, 963 F.2d at  1240-50 (police who engaged in  conduct that
          ______
          "shocks the conscience," by  attempting to "grill [suspect] until
          he  confessed," and  questioning him  for thirty  minutes despite
          assertion of right to  counsel, are subject to liability  under  
          1983 even though defendant does not incriminate himself).  

                                          9

          17  n.13 (1st Cir. 1992).  A  "serious medical need" is one "that

          has  been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment, or one

          that is so obvious that even a lay  person would easily recognize

          the  necessity for a doctor's  attention."  Gaudreault v. Munici-
                                                      __________    _______

          pality of Salem, Mass., 923 F.2d  203, 208 (1st Cir. 1990), cert.
          ______________________                                      _____

          denied, 500 U.S. 956 (1991).  The prescription indicated, and the
          ______

          district  court assumed,  that  Mahan needed,  and would  benefit

          from,  Tegretol.  The  record thus established  a serious medical

          need.5  

                    As the  district court found, however,  the record does

          not  establish a  trialworthy  claim that  PHC was  "deliberately

          indifferent"  to Mahan's  "serious  medical need."   The  Supreme

          Court  recently defined  "deliberate indifference" in  the prison

          context.   See Farmer v.  Brennan, 114  S. Ct. 1970  (1994).   In
                     ___ ______     _______

          order to  be found  "deliberately indifferent,"  prison officials

          must  be shown  to have  been subjectively  aware of  a condition
                                        ____________

          requiring their intervention.   Id. at 1980-82.  The  evidence in
                                          ___

          this case established one component of the "subjective awareness"

          requirement; viz., PHC corrections  officers were well aware that

          Tegretol had  been prescribed for  Mahan, and that  he repeatedly

          requested it.  

                    Nevertheless, the record on appeal contains no evidence

                              
          ____________________

               5PHC  argues that  the district  court ruling should  be af-
          firmed  on the  ground that  Tegretol would  not have  alleviated
          Mahan's  anxiety  attacks.   Given  the  presumption of  "serious
          medical need"  apparently indulged  by the district  court, which
          obviated  the  necessity  for  Mahan's  prescribing  physician to
          testify, see supra p. 4, we must reject this suggestion. 
                   ___ _____

                                          10

          from which a rational factfinder could conclude that PHC  person-

          nel were informed, or otherwise  learned, of the serious symptoms

          Mahan  actually experienced  while detained,  such as  would have

          made  them  subjectively aware  of  a  condition requiring  their

          intervention prior to November  21.  Id. at 1980-82;  cf. Miranda
                                               ___              __  _______

          v.  Munoz, 770  F.2d 255,  257-59 (1st Cir.  1985) (acknowledging
              _____

          that prison officials knew pretrial detainee's epilepsy not under

          control).   Absent evidence of subjective  awareness, there could

          be no "deliberate indifference"  to Mahan's serious medical need.

          Farmer, 114 S. Ct.  at 1980-82.  Consequently, the  Eighth Amend-
          ______

          ment claim failed as a matter of law.  See United States v.  John
                                                 ___ _____________     ____

          Doe, a/k/a Pizarro-Calderon, No. 94-1096, slip op. at  11-12 (1st
          ___________________________

          Cir. Aug.  4, 1995)  (appellate court  may affirm district  court

          ruling on any ground supported in record).  

                    Our ruling should not  be misconstrued as condoning the

          status  quo, however, but merely as indicating that PHC cannot be

          held liable for  failing to  adjust its policy  to accommodate  a

          "serious  medical need"  of which  it was  not  made aware.6   In

          these circumstances,  Mahan simply failed  to introduce  evidence

          essential to enable a reasonable  factfinder to conclude that PHC

          violated his Eighth Amendment rights.      

                    The district  court judgment is affirmed.   All parties
                                                    ________
                              
          ____________________

               6We add that the seemingly inflexible PHC policy relating to
          prescription medicines, coupled  with the limited "medical  offi-
          cer" hours, could  well have  resulted in serious  harm to  Mahan
          during the extended and  stressful period the medicine  needed to
          control  his previously  diagnosed condition  was withheld.   See
                                                                        ___
          Miranda, 770 F.2d at 259 (detainee died after epileptic seizure).
          _______
           

                                          11

          shall bear their own costs.   

                                          12