Rife v. Jefferson ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                                           FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                  Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                  August 2, 2018
    _________________________________
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    CLYDE ALLEN RIFE,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.                                                     No. 17-7037
    (D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00333-GKF)
    JOE JEFFERSON,                                          (E.D. Okla.)
    Defendant - Appellant,
    and
    OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF
    PUBLIC SAFETY; JOHNNY TADLOCK;
    CHAD DALE; JONATHON WILLIS;
    MCCURTAIN COUNTY JAIL TRUST;
    SCOTT MCCLAIN,
    Defendants.
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    CLYDE ALLEN RIFE,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.                                                     No. 17-7038
    (D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00333-GKF)
    CHAD DALE; JONATHON WILLIS,                             (E.D. Okla.)
    Defendants - Appellants,
    and
    OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF
    PUBLIC SAFETY; JOE JEFFERSON,
    State Trooper; MCCURTAIN COUNTY
    JAIL TRUST,
    Defendants.
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    _________________________________
    Before LUCERO, McKAY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    To survive a motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, a
    plaintiff must make a two-part showing. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that
    under the relevant version of the facts, the defendant violated a constitutional right.
    Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the contours of that constitutional right
    were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
    Here, the district court initially ruled that Joe Jefferson, Chad Dale, and
    Jonathon Willis (collectively, the defendants) were entitled to qualified immunity on
    plaintiff Clyde Rife’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims because Rife failed to satisfy the first
    part of this two-part test. Specifically, the district court ruled that Rife failed to
    demonstrate the defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment by displaying
    deliberate indifference to Rife’s serious medical needs. And in light of that
    conclusion, the district court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment
    without addressing whether the law was clearly established.
    Rife appealed, and a panel of this court reversed. It held that under the relevant
    version of the facts, Rife indeed demonstrated a constitutional violation. But like the
    *
    This order and judgment isn’t binding precedent, except under the doctrines
    of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But it may be cited for its
    persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    2
    district court before it, the panel declined to address whether the defendants’ conduct
    violated clearly established law. Instead, the panel remanded that question to the
    district court. And this time, the district court ruled in Rife’s favor. That is, it
    determined that the defendants violated clearly established law by displaying
    deliberate indifference to Rife’s serious medical needs. Thus, the district court denied
    the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The defendants now appeal that
    ruling.
    We affirm in part and reverse in part. To the extent the district court ruled that
    Jefferson’s conduct violated clearly established law, we agree. Accordingly, we
    affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying Jefferson’s motion for
    summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds. But we disagree with the district
    court’s conclusion that Willis’ and Dale’s conduct violated clearly established law.
    So we reverse the portion of the district court’s order denying their motion for
    summary judgment and remand with directions to enter summary judgment in their
    favor.
    Background
    In an interlocutory appeal from an order denying qualified immunity at the
    summary-judgment stage, “[t]he district court’s factual findings and reasonable
    assumptions” generally “comprise ‘the universe of facts upon which we base our
    legal review.’” Cox v. Glanz, 
    800 F.3d 1231
    , 1242 (10th Cir. 2015) (quoting Fogarty
    v. Gallegos, 
    523 F.3d 1147
    , 1154 (10th Cir. 2008)). Thus, our first step is typically to
    determine just what those “factual findings and reasonable assumptions” are. 
    Id. But 3
    here, another panel of this court has already made those determinations in a previous
    appeal. See generally Rife v. Okla. Dep’t of Pub. Safety (Rife I), 
    854 F.3d 637
    (10th
    Cir.), cert. denied, 
    138 S. Ct. 364
    (2017). Accordingly, under the law-of-the-case
    doctrine, we derive the following historical facts from our decision in that appeal. See
    Rohrbaugh v. Celotex Corp., 
    53 F.3d 1181
    , 1183 (10th Cir. 1995) (“[W]hen a case is
    appealed and remanded, the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the
    case and ordinarily will be followed by both the trial court on remand and the
    appellate court in any subsequent appeal.”).
    On May 14, 2013, Jefferson, an Oklahoma state trooper, found Rife sitting on
    a motorcycle on the side of a road. See Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 641
    . Rife told Jefferson
    that he was fine. But there were obvious signs to the contrary. For instance, Rife had
    dried blood on his nose. There were grass stains on his clothes. And there were grass
    and grass stains on his motorcycle, “indicating that he had been thrown from” the
    bike. 
    Id. at 643.
    Rife also appeared to be confused: his speech was slurred and he
    couldn’t provide the date, the time, or his social security number. Likewise, although
    Rife knew he’d been in Idabel, Oklahoma earlier that day, he couldn’t remember
    what he’d done there. 
    Id. Jefferson suspected
    that Rife was intoxicated. But because intoxication and
    head injuries can manifest in similar ways, Jefferson performed further testing. Rife
    displayed no other signs of a head injury, such as “unequal tracking of the pupils,
    unequal pupil size, and resting nystagmus.” 
    Id. at 643–44.
    Yet he did exhibit six
    “clues” of intoxication. 
    Id. at 644.
    Rife also failed or was unable to complete “four
    4
    additional tests” for intoxication that Jefferson attempted to perform. 
    Id. Before one
    of those tests, Rife told Jefferson he felt “floaty.” 
    Id. at 644.
    During another, “Rife
    lost his balance.” 
    Id. Nevertheless, Jefferson
    knew Rife wasn’t drunk. Instead, he suspected that
    Rife “had taken too much pain medication.” 
    Id. at 644.
    On that basis, Jefferson
    arrested Rife for public intoxication. At the time of the arrest, Jefferson knew that
    Rife had—despite Rife’s repeated protestations to the contrary—“obviously been in
    an accident.” 
    Id. But Jefferson
    didn’t think the accident was a serious one. For one
    thing, Rife didn’t “have the type of visible injuries that would likely result from a
    high-speed or high-impact accident.” 
    Id. For another,
    “there was little damage to the
    motorcycle or [its] saddlebags.” 
    Id. Thus, Jefferson
    transported Rife directly to jail.
    
    Id. at 645.
    Along the way, Rife said that his chest and heart hurt and “groaned in
    pain.”1 
    Id. at 648.
    At some point, Rife also “stated that he felt sick.” 
    Id. Nevertheless, Jefferson
    didn’t seek medical attention for Rife. 
    Id. at 649.
    When Jefferson arrived at the jail with Rife in tow, he told jail officials Willis
    and Dale that Rife was under arrest for public intoxication. But neither Jefferson nor
    Rife “mentioned the motorcycle accident.” 
    Id. at 641,
    651. Nor did they indicate that
    Rife “might have been injured.” 
    Id. at 651.
    1
    Jefferson insists that “these statements were mumbled in a barely audible
    manner.” Aplt. Br. 13. But we have already determined otherwise. See Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 648
    n.6 (“Rife did not whisper these statements; a factfinder could reasonably
    infer that the statements were loud enough for [Jefferson] to hear.”); 
    Rohrbaugh, 53 F.3d at 1183
    .
    5
    During the booking process, Rife “was dazed”: he “slurr[ed] his words and
    show[ed] confusion about where he was [and] what he was doing.” 
    Id. As a
    result,
    Willis and Dale both suspected that Rife was “on” something. 
    Id. But Willis
    wasn’t
    sure what, and neither man could smell alcohol on Rife’s breath. Nevertheless, Willis
    placed Rife on medical observation, “fearing that he might throw up in his sleep. This
    placement required jail personnel to check on [Rife] every [15] minutes.”2 
    Id. After booking
    him into the jail, Willis and Dale moved Rife to a holding cell.
    As he entered the cell, “Rife moaned loudly, showed obvious pain, and repeatedly
    complained of stomach pain.”3 
    Id. Nevertheless, neither
    Willis nor Dale “obtain[ed]
    medical attention for” him. 
    Id. at 652.
    The next morning, Rife collapsed in the bail bondsman’s office. 
    Id. As it
    turns
    out, Rife wasn’t intoxicated after all; instead his behavior was the result of a head
    injury that he suffered in the motorcycle accident. 
    Id. at 641.
    Rife later sued the defendants under § 1983, asserting that their failure to seek
    medical attention for him violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. See
    Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 642
    ; 
    id. at 647
    (“[T]he Fourteenth Amendment is violated if state
    2
    Rife asserts that he “was not checked on every fifteen minutes as required by
    policy.” Aplee. Br. 26. But he doesn’t suggest that any of the defendants were
    responsible for, or even aware of, this breach.
    3
    Willis and Dale insist that Rife didn’t complain, moan, or otherwise indicate
    he was in pain until “after [they] had already placed [him] in the holding cell,” at
    which point they were no longer present. Rep. Br. 8. But again, we have already
    determined otherwise. See Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 651
    (noting that Rife’s cellmate
    unambiguously stated Rife displayed these signs of pain “when he entered the
    holding cell” (emphasis added)); 
    id. at 652
    (concluding that Willis and Dale “were
    present at the time”); 
    Rohrbaugh, 53 F.3d at 1183
    .
    6
    officials are deliberately indifferent to a pretrial detainee’s serious medical needs.”).
    The defendants moved for summary judgment and the district court granted their
    motions, concluding that Rife failed to demonstrate the defendants’ conduct rose to
    the level of deliberate indifference. 
    Id. at 642.
    Rife appealed and this court reversed in part, holding that a reasonable jury
    “could find facts supporting [Rife’s] deliberate indifference claims against” the
    defendants. 
    Id. We then
    remanded to the district court to determine in the first
    instance whether the defendants’ conduct violated clearly-established law. 
    Id. On remand,
    the district court ruled that the law was clearly established.
    Specifically, it concluded that Jefferson violated Rife’s “clearly established right to
    medical attention following a motorcycle accident,” and that Willis and Dale violated
    Rife’s “clearly established right to medical attention when placed in a holding cell
    while ‘obviously in pain.’” App. vol. 8, 1312–13 (quoting Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 651
    ).
    Thus, the district court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The
    defendants appeal.
    Discussion
    Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action against any individual who,
    while acting under color of state law, deprives another individual of his or her federal
    rights. But the doctrine of “[q]ualified immunity ‘protects governmental officials
    from liability for civil damages’” unless their conduct “violate[s] ‘clearly established
    statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”
    Weise v. Casper, 
    593 F.3d 1163
    , 1166 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan,
    7
    
    555 U.S. 223
    , 231 (2009)). Thus, when a defendant asserts qualified immunity as a
    defense to a § 1983 claim at the summary-judgment stage, the burden shifts to the
    plaintiff to make a two-part showing. First, the plaintiff must demonstrate that on the
    facts as alleged, the defendant violated a constitutional right. Second, the plaintiff
    must demonstrate that the contours of that right were clearly established at the time
    of the alleged violation. 
    Cox, 800 F.3d at 1245
    . “If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either
    part of the two-part inquiry, the court must grant the defendant qualified immunity.”
    Medina v. Cram, 
    252 F.3d 1124
    , 1128 (10th Cir. 2001).
    Here, Rife has already cleared the first of these two hurdles. That is, a panel of
    this court has already held that, based on the relevant “universe of facts,” Jefferson,
    Willis, and Dale violated the Fourteenth Amendment by displaying deliberate
    indifference to Rife’s serious medical needs. 
    Cox, 800 F.3d at 1242
    (quoting 
    Fogarty, 523 F.3d at 1154
    ); see also Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 642
    . Thus, the lone question before us
    in this appeal is whether the law was clearly established at the time of that violation.4
    See 
    Rohrbaugh, 53 F.3d at 1183
    (explaining law-of-the-case doctrine).
    4
    As a preliminary matter, Rife asserts that the defendants “waived” their
    clearly-established arguments by raising them “for the first time during a post-
    remand hearing.” Aplee. Br. 12. The defendants disagree, maintaining that they
    consistently advanced these arguments below. We need not resolve the parties’
    disagreement on this point. Even assuming the defendants never expressly asserted
    below that the law wasn’t clearly established, we would reach this issue on appeal for
    two reasons. First, Rife doesn’t dispute that the defendants initially asserted qualified
    immunity as a defense, “[a]nd this defense necessarily included the clearly-
    established-law question.” 
    Cox, 800 F.3d at 1245
    . Second, the district court
    addressed the clearly-established-law question below, and “both parties had full
    opportunity to argue—and did argue—this issue on appeal.” Margheim v. Buljko, 855
    8
    In determining whether the law was clearly established, we ask whether Rife
    has “identif[ied] an on-point Supreme Court or published Tenth Circuit decision;
    alternatively, ‘the clearly established weight of authority from other courts must have
    found the law to be as [he] maintains.’” Quinn v. Young, 
    780 F.3d 998
    , 1005 (10th
    Cir. 2015) (quoting 
    Weise, 593 F.3d at 1167
    ). Of course, this isn’t to say that Rife
    must direct us to a case that is “exactly on point.” 
    Weise, 593 F.3d at 1167
    (emphasis
    added) (explaining that plaintiff can demonstrate law was clearly established even if
    “the very action in question” hasn’t “previously been held unlawful” (quoting
    Anderson v. Creighton, 
    483 U.S. 635
    , 640 (1987))). “[B]ut existing precedent must
    have placed the . . . constitutional question beyond debate.” Mullenix v. Luna, 136 S.
    Ct. 305, 308 (2015) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 
    563 U.S. 731
    , 741 (2011)). And to
    do that, a previous decision must be “‘particularized’ to the facts of the case” before
    us. White v. Pauly, 
    137 S. Ct. 548
    , 552 (2017) (quoting 
    Creighton, 483 U.S. at 640
    )
    (warning courts not to define the clearly-established right “at a high level of
    generality” (quoting 
    al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742
    )).
    In other words, to demonstrate the law was clearly established, Rife must
    identify a case in which a defendant “acting under similar circumstances as”
    Jefferson, Willis, and Dale “was held to have violated” the Eighth or Fourteenth
    Amendments. Id.; see also Martin v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 
    909 F.2d 402
    , 406 (10th
    Cir. 1990) (explaining that the Fourteenth Amendment entitles pretrial detainees to
    F.3d 1077, 1089 (10th Cir. 2017). Thus, we opt to resolve this purely legal question.
    See 
    id. at 1087.
                                               9
    “the same degree of protection regarding medical attention afforded convicted
    inmates under the [E]ighth [A]mendment”). Thus, our task is to examine the cases
    that the district court relied on below and those that Rife cites on appeal and ask
    whether any of those cases satisfy this test. See Apodaca v. Raemisch, 
    864 F.3d 1071
    ,
    1076 n.3 (10th Cir. 2017) (explaining that plaintiff bears burden of identifying
    decision that clearly establishes relevant right and declining to consider “potential
    sources” of authority that plaintiffs didn’t rely on), petition for cert. filed Mar. 13,
    2018 (No. 17-1284); 
    Cox, 800 F.3d at 1247
    (noting that because plaintiff failed to
    “direct[] our attention” to decision that clearly established relevant right, we could
    hold—“[o]n this basis alone”—that plaintiff failed to “properly la[y] the groundwork
    to defeat [defendant’s] assertion of qualified immunity”).
    In undertaking this inquiry, we first address whether Rife has identified a case
    that clearly establishes Jefferson’s conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment. We
    then turn to the question of whether he has identified such a case vis-à-vis Willis and
    Dale.
    I.      Jefferson
    In ruling that Jefferson’s conduct violated Rife’s clearly established
    Fourteenth Amendment rights, the district court cited six cases: Barton v. Taber, 
    820 F.3d 958
    (8th Cir. 2016); Marquez v. Board of County Commissioners, 543 F. App’x
    803 (10th Cir. 2013) (unpublished); Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 
    312 F.3d 1304
    (10th
    Cir. 2002); Garcia v. Salt Lake County, 
    768 F.2d 303
    (10th Cir. 1985); Marquez v.
    Board of County Commissioners, No. 11-CV-838 JAP/WDS, 
    2012 WL 12895017
    10
    (D.N.M. Dec. 3, 2012), aff’d 543 F. App’x 803; and Kraft v. Laney, No. CIV S-04-
    0129 GGH, 
    2005 WL 2042310
    (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2005).
    But as Jefferson points out, two of these six cases were decided after May 14,
    2013—the date on which the events at issue here transpired. See Barton, 
    820 F.3d 958
    ; Marquez, 543 F. App’x 803. Thus, these cases are “of no use in the clearly
    established inquiry.” Kisela v. Hughes, 
    138 S. Ct. 1148
    , 1154 (2018) (quoting
    Brosseau v. Haugen, 
    543 U.S. 194
    , 200 n.4 (2004)); see also 
    Haugen, 543 U.S. at 200
    n.4 (explaining that when judicial decisions “postdate the conduct in question,”
    they are incapable of “giv[ing] fair notice” to government officials). Similarly,
    because two of the other cases the district court cited (Marquez, 
    2012 WL 12895017
    ,
    and Kraft, 
    2005 WL 2042310
    ) are district-court cases, they are likewise incapable of
    clearly establishing the law. See Camreta v. Greene, 
    563 U.S. 692
    , 709 n.7 (2011)
    (“[D]istrict court decisions—unlike those from the courts of appeals—do not
    necessarily settle constitutional standards . . . .”); Estate of B.I.C. v. Gillen, 
    761 F.3d 1099
    , 1106 (10th Cir. 2014) (“[W]e can disregard district-court decisions cited by the
    [plaintiff], which can be persuasive on the merits of a constitutional claim but cannot
    clearly establish what the law is.”).
    Of the cases the district court relied on, that leaves only Olsen, 
    312 F.3d 1304
    ,
    and Garcia, 
    768 F.2d 303
    . And as Rife points out, some of the underlying facts in
    Garcia are indeed similar to the facts before us here. For instance, the decedent in
    Garcia was arrested for driving under the influence after he was involved in a traffic
    
    accident. 768 F.2d at 305
    . But when the decedent complained of back pain, he “was
    11
    transported by ambulance to a hospital.” 
    Id. Left unmonitored,
    he then “ingested an
    overdose of a . . . prescribed medication[]” and escaped from the exam room. 
    Id. Officers later
    found him “passed out on the pavement.” 
    Id. Unaware that
    he had
    ingested any drugs, officials transferred the then semi-conscious decedent to the jail
    and placed him in a holding cell, where an officer checked on him every 30 minutes.
    The decedent was found unconscious at approximately 8:30 p.m. and “found
    apparently dead” approximately two hours after that. 
    Id. at 305–06.
    An internist later
    testified that the decedent “would have survived the . . . overdose and could have
    been stabilized if he had been transported to the hospital when observed at 8:30 p.m.
    . . . and found to be unconscious.” 
    Id. at 306.
    The decedents’ widow and parents brought suit against the county, several of
    its officials, and various other individual defendants under § 1983. They alleged “that
    the decedent’s death was caused by the execution of official policies, practices or
    customs of” the county that “were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical
    needs of” the jail’s pretrial detainees and that “violated the decedent’s constitutional
    right to receive reasonable and adequate medical care.” 
    Id. at 305.
    A jury agreed,
    finding that the county violated the decedent’s constitutional rights. But importantly,
    the jury concluded that none of the individual defendants violated those rights. See
    
    id. at 309
    n.6.
    On appeal, the county characterized the jury’s verdict as inconsistent, asserting
    that “a finding of unconstitutional conduct by” at least one of the individual
    defendants was “a prerequisite to a finding that the [c]ounty [was] liable.” 
    Id. at 306.
    12
    We rejected that argument, explaining that “the combined acts or omissions of
    several employees acting under a governmental policy or custom may violate an
    individual’s constitutional rights,” even if “the acts or omissions” of one single
    employee do not. 
    Id. at 310.
    And we also found sufficient evidence to support the
    jury’s finding that the county was deliberately indifferent to the decedent’s serious
    medical needs, citing the county’s “gross deficiencies . . . in staffing and procedures
    to monitor persons admitted to the jail in an unconscious condition who [were]
    suspected of being intoxicated.” 
    Id. at 308.
    Accordingly, we affirmed the judgment
    against the county. 
    Id. at 310.
    According to Rife, “there are obvious parallels between Garcia and the case at
    bar.” Aplee. Br. 27. We don’t necessarily disagree. But Rife overlooks a critical
    distinction between the two cases: Garcia involved a finding of municipal liability.
    That is, Garcia establishes that a municipality violates the Fourteenth Amendment
    when (1) it has a policy of admitting intoxicated, unconscious individuals into its jail;
    (2) it fails to adequately staff the jail in a manner that keeps those individuals safe
    from serious harm; and (3) injury results from its employees’ “execution of [the
    municipality’s] policy or custom.” 
    Id. at 307–08,
    310. Here, though, Rife doesn’t
    suggest that Jefferson was responsible for creating or implementing a policy that
    caused Rife’s injuries. Nor does Rife suggest Jefferson had anything to do with
    staffing the jail or ensuring that he was adequately monitored once he was booked
    into the jail. Accordingly, Garcia isn’t a case in which a defendant “acting under
    13
    similar circumstances as” Jefferson “was held to have violated” the Fourteenth
    Amendment. 
    Pauly, 137 S. Ct. at 552
    .
    To the extent that Olsen, 
    312 F.3d 1304
    , also involved a finding of municipal
    liability, we reach the same conclusion. There, the defendant-officer arrested the
    plaintiff—who suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)—and then
    transferred him to the county jail. 
    Id. at 1309–10.
    “[E]n route to the jail,” the plaintiff
    informed the arresting officer that he was having a panic attack. 
    Id. at 310.
    But the
    arresting officer “neglected to address [the plaintiff’s] two pleas for assistance.” 
    Id. When the
    two men arrived at the jail, the plaintiff informed jail employees
    “that he had OCD and required medication to stave off panic attacks.” 
    Id. Nevertheless, “jail
    officers took [the plaintiff’s] medication from him and insisted—
    per search procedure—that he remove his shoes and socks.” 
    Id. The plaintiff
    “recoiled at the request, refusing because of a fear of contamination from the dirty
    floor.” 
    Id. He later
    “acceded to the demand, but incurred another panic attack in the
    process” 
    Id. “The prebooking
    officers also forced [the plaintiff] to be fingerprinted
    without heeding his concerns about cleanliness.” 
    Id. As relevant
    here, the plaintiff sued the arresting officer and the county under
    § 1983, alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. 
    Id. at 1308–09.
    The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants, and the plaintiff
    appealed. 
    Id. at 1311.
    We reversed the district court’s order granting summary
    judgment to the arresting officer on qualified-immunity grounds, concluding that on
    the facts alleged, a jury could find the officer violated the plaintiff’s clearly
    14
    established rights by displaying deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s serious
    medical needs. 
    Id. at 1315–17.
    Likewise, we reversed the district court’s order
    granting summary judgment to the county, reasoning “that disputed material facts
    exist[ed] as to” (1) whether the county “expressed deliberate indifference to an OCD-
    sufferer’s rights via a failure to train” its jail staff on how to recognize and respond to
    individuals suffering from OCD and (2) “whether any deliberate indifference could
    operate as a causal link to his alleged injuries.” 
    Id. at 1319–20.
    To the extent we reversed the district court’s award of summary judgment to
    the county in Olsen, we did so based on a theory of municipal liability: we held that a
    reasonable jury could find the county liable for its failure to train jail staff regarding
    how to recognize and respond to individuals suffering from OCD. 
    See 312 F.3d at 1320
    . This aspect of Olsen’s holding—like the finding of municipal liability in
    Garcia, 
    768 F.2d 303
    —wouldn’t have put Jefferson on notice that his individual
    conduct in failing to obtain medical care for Rife violated the Fourteenth
    Amendment. See 
    Pauly, 137 S. Ct. at 552
    .
    But we cannot say the same of Olsen’s discussion of the arresting officer. In
    evaluating whether he violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights, we recognized that
    the plaintiff’s panic attack may not have “manifest[ed] itself . . . visibly.” 
    Olsen, 312 F.3d at 1317
    . Yet we reasoned that, much like the symptoms of a heart attack, the
    symptoms of a panic attack may be “subtler and consequently more capable of being
    described by the sufferer than noticed by an outsider.” 
    Id. And in
    light of the fact that
    the plaintiff in Olsen “described” his “subtler” symptoms to the arresting officer by
    15
    expressly informing him that he was experiencing a panic attack, we concluded that
    the officer’s failure to obtain medical treatment for the plaintiff “ma[d]e summary
    judgment” on qualified-immunity grounds “improper.” 
    Id. The same
    is true here. Rife may not have had “the type of visible injuries that
    would likely result from a high-speed or high-impact accident.” Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 644
    . Nevertheless, Jefferson admitted that he knew “Rife had been in a motorcycle
    accident.” 
    Id. And much
    like the plaintiff in Olsen, Rife repeatedly relayed to
    Jefferson the “subtler” symptoms of the injuries he suffered in that accident. 
    Olsen, 312 F.3d at 1317
    . For instance, Rife (1) informed Jefferson “that he felt sick” and
    “floaty”; (2) repeatedly told Jefferson that his chest and heart hurt; and (3) “groaned
    in pain.” Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 644
    .
    In fact, if anything, the case against Jefferson is stronger than was the
    plaintiff’s case against the arresting officer in Olsen. Here, in addition to verbally
    informing Jefferson about those aspects of his condition that weren’t necessarily
    subject to “notice[] by an outsider,” 
    Olsen, 312 F.3d at 1317
    —including, critically,
    heart and chest pain—Rife also displayed readily discernable signs that he needed
    medical care as the result of his motorcycle accident: there was “dried blood on [his]
    nose,” and he appeared dizzy and confused, Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 648
    ; see also Sealock
    v. Colorado, 
    218 F.3d 1205
    , 1210 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that prisoner presented
    sufficient evidence to demonstrate constitutional violation where prison guard failed
    to obtain medical care for him, despite fact that prisoner informed guard he believed
    he might be having heart attack and also “displayed symptoms consistent with a heart
    16
    attack”). Thus, we conclude that at the time of the alleged constitutional violation,
    existing circuit precedent would have “put a reasonable official” in Jefferson’s
    position “on notice that his conduct was unlawful.” 
    Weise, 593 F.3d at 1167
    .
    But this conclusion doesn’t necessarily resolve the clearly-established
    question. That’s because Jefferson asserts that “[e]ven assuming” there exists “on-
    point circuit precedent involving materially similar facts to this case and finding that
    the defendant . . . violated the Constitution, this [c]ourt’s other precedents are so
    favorable to Jefferson’s position that the law would still be unclear due to apparent
    contradictions in the precedent.” Aplt. Br. 29–30.
    In support, Jefferson cites a series of cases in which we have held that medical
    professionals didn’t violate the Constitution by misdiagnosing prisoners. See, e.g.,
    Self v. Crum, 
    439 F.3d 1227
    , 1228, 1234 (10th Cir. 2006) (“At worst, the evidence
    shows [prison physician] misdiagnosed [inmate’s] condition. But a misdiagnosis,
    even if rising to the level of medical malpractice, is simply insufficient under our
    case law to satisfy the subjective component of a deliberate indifference claim.”);
    Mata v. Saiz, 
    427 F.3d 745
    , 750, 760–61 (10th Cir. 2005) (finding no constitutional
    violation where record demonstrated that prison nurse “made a good faith effort to
    diagnose and treat [prisoner’s] medical condition” even though it was later
    determined that prisoner had indeed “suffered a heart attack”); 
    Sealock, 218 F.3d at 1208
    , 1211 (“At worst, [prison nurse] misdiagnosed appellant and failed to pass on
    information to [another defendant] about appellant’s chest pain. Appellant has failed
    17
    to show that [prison nurse] was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical
    needs.”).
    Jefferson’s reliance on this line of authority is misplaced. As even he
    acknowledges, we held in Rife I that the “specialized” deliberate-indifference
    standards that apply to medical professionals don’t apply to “laypersons such as
    
    [Jefferson].” 854 F.3d at 647
    ; see also 
    Rohrbaugh, 53 F.3d at 1183
    (explaining law-
    of-the-case doctrine). And although Jefferson asserts that “[t]his development was
    unforeseen because neither this [c]ourt nor any other court of appeals had previously
    made such a distinction,” he fails to identify any cases holding that a layperson may
    successfully assert a misdiagnosis defense to a deliberate-indifference claim. Indeed,
    we expressly noted the dearth of such cases in Rife I. 
    See 854 F.3d at 647
    (“We have
    not applied these [misdiagnosis] standards to deliberate indifference claims against
    laypersons such as police officers.”). Thus, contrary to Jefferson’s assertions, none of
    the misdiagnosis cases he cites “would have indicated to a reasonable officer” in
    Jefferson’s position that his “conduct did not violate the Constitution.” Aplt. Br. 33.
    The same is true of the cases from outside our circuit that Jefferson cites in his
    brief. According to Jefferson, “it is difficult to see how even an on-point circuit
    precedent could render the law ‘clearly established’ if the same conduct in another
    circuit would be constitutional.” Aplt. Br. 34 n.97. But even assuming the cases
    Jefferson cites suggest that other circuits might reach a different conclusion about the
    constitutionality of Jefferson’s conduct in this case, “the decisions of one circuit
    court of appeals are not binding upon another circuit.” Garcia ex rel. Garcia v.
    18
    Miera, 
    817 F.2d 650
    , 658 (10th Cir. 1987) (“To give preclusive effect to a conflict
    among the circuits” in context of clearly-established analysis “would effectively bind
    this circuit by the decisions of others. Moreover, the binding would always be in
    denigration of the constitutional right at issue.”). Thus, to the extent that Jefferson
    suggests another circuit’s cases can disestablish the clearly established law of this
    circuit, we disagree.5 And in this circuit, it has been clearly established for more than
    a decade that when an arrestee not only informs an arresting officer of the internal
    symptoms of a serious medical condition but also displays outward signs of the need
    for medical attention, the arresting officer violates the Fourteenth Amendment by
    failing to seek such care. See 
    Olsen, 312 F.3d at 1317
    ; 
    Sealock, 218 F.3d at 1210
    .
    Accordingly, Jefferson isn’t entitled to qualified immunity, and we therefore affirm
    the district court’s order denying his motion for summary judgment.
    5
    Jefferson cites Ziglar v. Abbasi, 
    137 S. Ct. 1843
    , 1868 (2017), for the proposition
    that “[w]hen the courts are divided on an issue . . . , a reasonable official lacks the notice
    required before imposing liability.” But Jefferson appears to acknowledge that Ziglar’s
    pronouncement on this point isn’t binding. Presumably that’s because only four members
    of the Court joined this portion of the opinion. See Texas v. Brown, 
    460 U.S. 730
    , 737
    (1983) (noting that such opinion isn’t binding). Accordingly, we remain bound by
    Garcia’s pronouncement that, to the extent other circuits have held conduct like
    Jefferson’s doesn’t violate the Constitution, those decisions don’t muddle our clearly
    established law. 
    See 817 F.2d at 658
    ; see also Coriz ex rel. Coriz v. Martinez, 
    915 F.2d 1469
    , 1470 n.2 (10th Cir. 1990) (reaffirming that “Garcia rule . . . applies to
    interjurisdictional conflicts”); cf. Morfin v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 
    906 F.2d 1434
    ,
    1439 (10th Cir. 1990) (“In the absence of contemporary Tenth Circuit precedent
    directly concerning the issue, we may look to the law of other circuits when deciding
    whether or not a right was clearly established.” (emphasis added)).
    19
    II.   Willis and Dale
    We turn next to the question of whether any of the cases that the district court
    cited below or that Rife identifies on appeal clearly establish that Willis’ and Dale’s
    conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
    First, for the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the district court erred
    in relying on Barton, 
    820 F.3d 958
    ; Marquez, 543 F. App’x 803; Marquez, 
    2012 WL 12895017
    ; and Kraft, 
    2005 WL 2042310
    . See 
    Haugen, 543 U.S. at 200
    n.4
    (explaining that when judicial decisions “postdate the conduct in question,” they are
    incapable of “giv[ing] fair notice” to government officials); Estate of 
    B.I.C., 761 F.3d at 1106
    (“[D]istrict-court decisions . . . can be persuasive on the merits of a
    constitutional claim but cannot clearly establish what the law is.”). Likewise, for the
    reasons discussed above, we conclude that to the extent Olsen, 
    312 F.3d 1304
    , and
    Garcia, 
    768 F.2d 303
    , involve findings of municipal liability, they are incapable of
    clearly establishing that Willis’ and Dale’s individual conduct here violated the
    Constitution.
    Whether Olsen’s individual-individual liability discussion clearly establishes
    as much is a closer question. Like the plaintiff in Olsen, Rife verbally informed
    Willis and Dale of his internal discomfort: he “repeatedly complain[ed] of stomach
    pain” as Willis and Dale were moving him to the holding cell. Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 652
    ;
    see also 
    Olsen, 312 F.3d at 1317
    (noting that certain conditions have symptoms that
    are “more capable of being described by the sufferer than noticed by an outsider,”
    20
    and pointing out that plaintiff told arresting officer he was suffering from panic
    attack).
    Nevertheless, we cannot say that Olsen places the constitutional question here
    “beyond debate.” 
    Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308
    (quoting 
    al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741
    ).
    Recall that when they booked him into the jail, Willis and Dale didn’t know (or even
    have reason to suspect) that Rife had been thrown from his motorcycle, let alone that
    he might have suffered any internal injuries as a result. That’s because when
    Jefferson delivered Rife to the jail for booking, “no one mentioned the motorcycle
    accident or said that [Rife] might have been injured.” Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 651
    . Thus,
    Willis and Dale knew only that Rife was suffering from stomach pain—a common
    malady that doesn’t necessarily require any sort of immediate medical intervention.
    And we simply cannot say that Olsen would place every reasonable official in Willis’
    and Dale’s position on notice that every detainee who entered the jail complaining of
    stomach pain (even “considerable” stomach pain, Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 652
    n.58), was
    constitutionally entitled to immediate medical treatment for that ailment. More
    importantly, unlike the arresting officer in Olsen—who apparently ignored the
    plaintiff’s condition completely—Willis placed Rife on medical observation, a
    designation that “required jail personnel to check on [Rife] every [15] minutes.” 
    Id. at 641;
    see also 
    Olsen, 312 F.3d at 1317
    . In light of this proactive conduct, we hold
    that Olsen doesn’t place “beyond debate” the question of whether Willis and Dale
    were deliberately indifferent to Rife’s serious medical needs. 
    Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308
    (quoting 
    al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741
    ).
    21
    Thus, we agree with Willis and Dale: the district court erred in defining the
    right at issue here at too “high [a] level of generality.” 
    Pauly, 137 S. Ct. at 552
    (quoting 
    al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 742
    ). That is, the district court characterized the law as
    clearly established without first “identify[ing] a case where an officer acting under
    similar circumstances as [Willis and Dale] was held to have violated the [Eighth or
    Fourteenth] Amendment.” 
    Id. But that
    doesn’t necessarily mean we must reverse. On
    appeal, Rife cites two additional cases in support of his assertion that Willis and Dale
    violated his clearly established rights: Mata, 
    427 F.3d 745
    , and Sealock, 
    218 F.3d 1205
    .
    Yet in arguing that Mata and Sealock would have put reasonable officials in
    Willis and Dale’s position on notice that their conduct violated his Fourteenth
    Amendment rights, Rife doesn’t discuss the facts of either case. Thus, he necessarily
    fails to demonstrate that either case is “‘particularized’ to the facts” present here.
    
    Pauly, 137 S. Ct. at 552
    ; cf. 
    Cox, 800 F.3d at 1245
    (citing “unique briefing burdens
    of the nonmovant plaintiff in the qualified-immunity context”). Nevertheless, we
    have sua sponte reviewed the facts of both cases, and we find them distinguishable.
    First, to the extent that Mata and Sealock involved defendants who were
    medical professionals, see, e.g., 
    Mata, 427 F.3d at 750
    ; 
    Sealock, 218 F.3d at 1208
    ,
    we held in Rife I that such cases don’t establish the deliberate-indifference standards
    that apply to laypeople like Willis and Dale, see Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 647
    , 651;
    
    Rohrbaugh, 53 F.3d at 1183
    (explaining law-of-the-case doctrine). Thus, we
    conclude that Mata—a case in which all four defendants were medical
    22
    professionals—was therefore incapable of putting Willis and Dale on notice that their
    conduct violated the Fourteenth Amendment. 
    See 427 F.3d at 750
    .
    To the extent that two of the defendants in Sealock were also medical
    professionals, we reach the same conclusion. 
    See 218 F.3d at 1208
    . But the other two
    defendants in Sealock were prison guards. See 
    id. And as
    discussed above, we held
    that one of those guards violated the Eighth Amendment when (1) the plaintiff and
    his cellmate both informed the guard “that [the plaintiff] was or might be having a
    heart attack”; (2) the guard “was present when [the plaintiff] displayed symptoms
    consistent with a heart attack”; and (3) the guard nevertheless “refused to transport
    [the plaintiff] immediately to a doctor or a hospital.” 
    Id. at 1210–11.
    Sealock clearly establishes that when an inmate or pretrial detainee complains
    of and displays symptoms consistent with a potentially life-threatening condition, a
    prison official who refuses the inmate’s or detainee’s request for medical treatment
    and takes no other action violates the Constitution. But that’s simply not what
    happened here. Although Rife groaned and complained of stomach pain, he never
    suggested that his stomach pain was linked to injuries that might require—or even
    benefit from—immediate medical treatment. That’s because Willis and Dale were
    unaware that Rife had been in a motorcycle accident, and therefore had no reason to
    link his stomach pain to a more serious condition. Cf. 
    Sealock, 218 F.3d at 1208
    (noting that inmate told guard that “he was having chest pain and might be having a
    heart attack”). Moreover, unlike the guard in Sealock, Willis took at least some action
    to ensure Rife’s safety: he placed Rife on medical monitoring, Rife 
    I, 854 F.3d at 23
    651. In light of these distinctions, Sealock doesn’t place “beyond debate” the
    question of whether Willis and Dale were deliberately indifferent to Rife’s serious
    medical needs. 
    Mullenix, 136 S. Ct. at 308
    (quoting 
    al-Kidd, 563 U.S. at 741
    ).
    In short, neither the cases the district court relied on below nor any of the
    cases that Rife cites on appeal clearly establish that Willis and Dale violated Rife’s
    Fourteenth Amendment rights.6 Accordingly, because Willis and Dale are entitled to
    qualified immunity, we reverse the portion of the district court’s order denying their
    motion for summary judgment. See 
    Medina, 252 F.3d at 1128
    .
    Conclusion
    We affirm the portion of the district court’s order denying Jefferson’s motion
    for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds. But because Rife fails to
    demonstrate that the law was clearly established as to Willis and Dale, they are
    entitled to qualified immunity. We therefore reverse the portion of the district court’s
    6
    Willis and Dale also argue that even assuming Rife identified a Tenth Circuit
    or Supreme Court decision that clearly established the contours of the right at issue,
    the constitutional question nevertheless wouldn’t be “beyond debate” because the
    district court in this case “initially found that [their] acts or omissions did not violate
    the Constitution.” Aplt. Br. 43. Because we agree with Willis and Dale that Rife fails
    to identify such a case, we need not reach this argument.
    24
    order denying their motion for summary judgment and remand with instructions to
    grant summary judgment in their favor.
    Entered for the Court
    Nancy L. Moritz
    Circuit Judge
    25