USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 1 of 21
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 21-13994
____________________
JESSICA N. ROGERS,
As personal representative of the estate of Jose F. Escano-Reyes and
as parent and natural guardian of Y.C., a minor child,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
SHERIFF OF SANTA ROSA COUNTY, FLORIDA,
In his official and individual capacity,
Defendant-Appellant,
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 2 of 21
2 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
JOHN GADDIS,
In his official and individual capacity,
Defendant,
MICHELLE BAUMAN,
In her official and individual capacity,
Defendant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:18-cv-00571-TKW-EMT
____________________
Before LAGOA and BRASHER, Circuit Judges, and BOULEE,* District
Judge.
BOULEE, District Judge:
This case arises from the suicide of an inmate, Jose Francisco
Escano-Reyes, at Florida’s Santa Rosa County Jail. Jessica Rogers,
the mother of Escano-Reyes’ minor child, brought claims under
42
U.S.C. § 1983 against John Gaddis and Michelle Bauman, deputies
* Honorable J. P. Boulee, United States District Judge for the Northern District
of Georgia, sitting by designation.
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 3 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 3
employed the Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office, alleging deliber-
ate indifference to medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Rogers also sued Bob Johnson, the Sheriff of Santa
Rosa County, in his official capacity under § 1983 and Monell v.
Department of Social Services,
436 U.S. 658 (1978), asserting that
the suicide-monitoring practices at the Santa Rosa County Jail vio-
lated Escano-Reyes’ constitutional rights. The matter proceeded
to trial.
After Rogers rested her case, the Sheriff moved for judgment
as a matter of law on the grounds that the evidence failed to show
that the Jail’s policies, practices, or customs were deliberately indif-
ferent to the risk of suicide. The district court denied the motion.
After the evidence closed, the jury determined that the deputies
were not liable under § 1983. More specifically, the jury found that
the deputies were aware of and deliberately indifferent to the risk
that Escano-Reyes would commit suicide but that their deliberate
indifference did not cause his death. The jury found that the Sher-
iff, however, was liable under Monell.
Following the verdict, the Sheriff renewed his motion for
judgment as a matter of law, again asserting that the evidence was
insufficient to show that the Jail’s policies, practices, or customs
were deliberately indifferent to the risk of suicide. The Sheriff
moved in the alternative to amend the judgment under Rule 59(e)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Without a finding that the
deputies were individually liable under § 1983, the Sheriff argued
that Rogers’ Monell claim necessarily failed and that he should be
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 4 of 21
4 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
removed from the judgment as a liable party. The district court
denied relief on both grounds.
Upon de novo review, we find sufficient evidence in the rec-
ord showing that the Jail’s policies constituted deliberate indiffer-
ence to the risk that Escano-Reyes would commit suicide. Moreo-
ver, we have previously considered the question of whether indi-
vidual liability under § 1983 is a necessary component of Monell
liability, and in Barnett v. MacArthur,
956 F.3d 1291, 1301 (11th Cir.
2020), we held that it is not. In light of Barnett, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by denying relief under Rule 59(e).
With the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court on
all grounds.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Escano-Reyes’ Arrest and Detention
On January 3, 2016, the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office ar-
rested Escano-Reyes for driving without a license. Escano-Reyes,
a Honduran citizen, was in the country illegally, and on January 7,
2016, he was placed in the custody of the Santa Rosa County Sher-
iff’s Office and detained at the Santa Rosa County Jail (the “Jail”)
pending removal proceedings.
Escano-Reyes’ mental health deteriorated while in custody,
and on April 2, 2016, he informed Jail officials that he wanted to die
and planned to kill himself. Medical staff at the Jail transferred
Escano-Reyes to the medical unit and placed him on a suicide-
watch protocol. Inmates on suicide watch are provided with a
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 5 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 5
suicide-prevention garment, or “suicide smock.” Suicide smocks
are ordinarily stiff and unpliable but can become more flexible with
time and wear. Escano-Reyes was provided with a suicide smock;
however, the Jail did not evaluate the condition of the smock given
to Escano-Reyes, nor did it know how old the smock was.
B. The Jail’s Suicide-Watch Protocol
The Jail’s suicide-watch protocol requires supervising depu-
ties to comply with a number of the Jail’s written policies. The
Jail’s standard operating procedure, for example, provides that sui-
cidal inmates must be under “direct visual observation by a dep-
uty/nurse 24 hours a day.” The Florida Model Jail Standards, with
which the Jail must comply, define “direct observation” as “contin-
uous visual observation 24 hours each day.” Additionally, super-
vising deputies at the Jail are expected to follow General Order O-
030II(D), which requires suicidal inmates who are housed in a sin-
gle cell to be “under direct continuous observation with docu-
mented staggered 15-minute physical checks.” Deputies must
complete a close-watch form to certify that they checked on the
inmate in question every fifteen minutes. Jail staff are expected to
comply with the suicide-watch protocol whether the inmate is
housed in the medical unit or elsewhere.
In reality, though, the Jail followed certain customs and
practices for monitoring suicidal inmates that differed from these
written policies. For instance, the Jail did not require deputies to
continuously or directly observe a suicidal inmate to confirm his
safety, nor did the Jail require deputies to physically walk to the
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 6 of 21
6 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
door of an inmate’s cell to look inside the window and check on
him. Instead, being in the general area of the inmate such that the
deputy was “available” and “capable” of performing the staggered
fifteen-minute check was deemed sufficient. The Jail also consid-
ered a solely visual check to constitute an adequate physical check
on the inmate’s safety. More specifically, a deputy, even if seated
some distance away, could comply with the Jail’s customs by
glimpsing some part of an inmate through the exposed portion of
a cell window.
Suicidal inmates who were disruptive to the medical staff
were often moved to the Admissions, Classification, and Release
(“ACR”) Unit. Cell one of the ACR unit, or ACR-1, was the only
cell in the ACR unit with a metal partition on which a ligature
could be fastened; nonetheless, ACR-1 was used to house suicidal
inmates. ACR-1 was not far from the Jail’s booking desk, but the
deputies who monitored the ACR unit from that desk had only an
obscured view of ACR-1. The Jail covered the main windows of
the ACR cells (including ACR-1) with curtains and the bottom half
of the cells’ smaller windows, which were positioned along the
length of the door, with plastic bags. 1 In sum, curtains and bags
concealed much of ACR-1’s interior from outside view. That, com-
bined with the cell’s position relative to the Jail’s booking desk,
1 The Jail explained that the purpose of this practice was to conceal, particu-
larly from the view of female deputies, inmates who were naked or mastur-
bating.
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 7 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 7
meant that a deputy would have to physically walk to the door of
ACR-1 and look through the portion of the smaller windows left
uncovered to see fully inside the cell. The Jail’s booking desk and
the interior of ACR-1 were recorded by video cameras and audio
equipment, but the video feed inside ACR-1 was not visible from
the booking desk. Instead, that video feed was displayed in a cen-
tral control room where one person watched hundreds of other
monitors.
C. Escano-Reyes’ Suicide
On April 6, 2016, following a period of erratic behavior,
Escano-Reyes—who remained on suicide watch—was moved
from the medical unit to the ACR unit, where he was housed in
ACR-1. On April 7, 2016, around 6:45 AM, deputies Gaddis and
Bauman began their shifts at the Jail. During their daily briefing
that morning, Gaddis and Bauman were informed that Escano-
Reyes was on suicide watch and that they were responsible for su-
pervising him.
Video footage from inside ACR-1 shows that Escano-Reyes
woke up on April 7, 2016, around 8:15 AM. Forty-five minutes
later, he removed his suicide smock and tied it into a knot around
the cell’s metal partition. He removed the smock from the parti-
tion a few minutes later and put it on before, again, taking it off and
tying the smock to the partition to create a ligature. Naked and
agitated, Escano-Reyes then paced his cell while yelling in Spanish.
The deputies could hear him shouting for over an hour, but
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 8 of 21
8 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
because they did not speak Spanish, they could not understand
what he was shouting.2
The close-watch form for Escano-Reyes on April 7, 2016, has
fifteen entries. At trial, Gaddis admitted that he falsified the close-
watch form by documenting checks—specifically, the first five en-
tries—that he did not, in fact, perform. The next two entries indi-
cate that a deputy checked on Escano-Reyes and that he was lying
down. Five entries have a code that Escano-Reyes was “shouting,”
but notably, the Jail did not permit solely auditory checks. The fi-
nal three entries on the close-watch form, at 9:32 AM, 9:45 AM and
10:00 AM, read “DOOR,” presumably indicating that the deputies
could see flashes of movement through the exposed portion of
ACR-1’s window, pursuant to the Jail’s policy of permitting solely
visual checks. Importantly, Gaddis and Bauman remained seated
at the booking desk between 9:30 AM and 10:25 AM. At no point
during this period did either deputy physically walk to the door of
ACR-1 to check on Escano-Reyes.
Between 9:30 AM and 10:25 AM, Escano-Reyes placed his
head into the ligature created with the suicide smock at least five
times. He tried to hang himself at least nine times. At 10:25 AM,
Escano-Reyes was able to hang himself. His body was not discov-
ered for twenty minutes. At 10:45 AM, a member of the Jail’s jani-
torial staff walked by Escano-Reyes’ cell, looked through the
2 Although the Jail recorded audio and video of ACR-1, the audio portion of
the recording from April 7, 2016, is unavailable.
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 9 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 9
portion of the exposed window and informed the deputies that
Escano-Reyes was “hanging.”
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Rogers filed an action in the Northern District of Florida as
the personal representative of Escano-Reyes’ estate and on behalf
of her and Escano-Reyes’ minor child. Rogers brought claims un-
der
42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs 3 against Gaddis and Bauman
in their individual capacities and a § 1983 claim under Monell v.
Department of Social Services,
436 U.S. 658 (1978), against the
Sheriff of Santa Rosa County in his official capacity. 4 Rogers also
brought state-law claims for negligence against Gaddis and Bau-
man. The Sheriff moved for summary judgment, as did the depu-
ties on the grounds of qualified immunity. The district court de-
nied both motions.5
3 There is no dispute in this case that inmates on suicide watch have a serious
medical need.
4 Because “a suit against a public official in his official capacity is considered a
suit against the local government entity he represents,” Owens v. Fulton
County,
877 F.2d 947, 951 n.5 (11th Cir. 1989), we refer to “the Sheriff” and
“the Jail” interchangeably in this opinion.
5 The deputies filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial of qualified immun-
ity, and we affirmed the district court’s ruling. See Rogers v. Santa Rosa Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off.,
856 F. App’x 251, 256 (11th Cir. 2021).
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 10 of 21
10 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
Rogers’ § 1983 claim against the Sheriff (and her § 1983 and
state-law claims against Gaddis and Bauman) proceeded to a jury
trial. Rogers presented evidence that the Jail had the following pol-
icies: (1) permitting the covering of two of the three windows of
ACR-1; (2) housing suicidal inmates in ACR-1, although the cell
contained a metal partition and its interior could not be fully
viewed from the Jail’s booking desk; and (3) allowing deputies to
perform visual checks on suicidal inmates by glimpsing the inmate
through a cell window while the deputy remained seated at the
booking desk. 6
Both parties presented witnesses to provide evidence about
the Jail’s policies. Captain Barbara Stearns testified as the repre-
sentative of the Jail. James Upchurch, a corrections professional
with a forty-five-year career and the former Assistant Secretary of
Institutions for the State of Florida, testified as an expert for Rog-
ers. 7
Stearns testified that placing a suicidal inmate in a cell with
partially concealed windows impeded adequate monitoring and
posed an obvious risk. Stearns conceded that the Jail followed cer-
tain practices when monitoring suicidal inmates that differed from
its written policies, specifically regarding the obligation to provide
direct and continuous observation of inmates on suicide watch.
6 We refer to these three practices as “the Jail’s policies.”
7 The Sheriff did not proffer an expert witness.
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 11 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 11
Stearns also explained that under the Jail’s policies, a “physical”
check on an inmate could occur if a deputy, even one seated some
distance away, simply glimpsed some part of the inmate through a
cell window.
Upchurch opined that placing a suicidal inmate in a cell with
a metal partition (like the one in ACR-1) and obstructing the win-
dows of cells used to house suicidal inmates did not show regard
for human life. According to Upchurch, permitting deputies to
monitor inmates from a distant seated position—rather than re-
quiring direct, continuous observation—would have “negative
consequences” for preventing inmate suicide. Similarly, Upchurch
explained, allowing checks that consisted solely of momentarily
seeing the inmate through a window were not only insufficient to
ensure the inmate’s safety but dangerous as a matter of practice.
After Rogers rested her case, the Sheriff moved for judgment
as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, arguing that none of the Jail’s policies were unconstitu-
tional. The district court found sufficient evidence in the record to
support a jury finding that the Jail’s policies were deliberately indif-
ferent to the risk that Escano-Reyes would commit suicide, and
thus the court denied the Sheriff’s motion. The deputies also
moved for judgment as a matter of law, and the district court like-
wise denied their motions. The jury returned a verdict for Rogers
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 12 of 21
12 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
on the Monell claim and for the deputies on the individual § 1983
claims.8
Although the verdict as to Gaddis and Bauman is not on ap-
peal, some of the jury’s findings specific to the deputies (such as the
jury’s answers on the verdict form) are relevant to our analysis of
the Sheriff’s liability under Monell. We thus review those findings
now.
To find Gaddis or Bauman liable under § 1983, the verdict
form required the jurors to conclude that (1) Gaddis or Bauman
had subjective knowledge of the risk that Escano-Reyes would
commit suicide; (2) Gaddis or Bauman were deliberately indiffer-
ent to that risk; and (3) their deliberate indifference caused his sui-
cide. Therefore, the jury had to answer “yes” to all three of these
questions to find that either Gaddis or Bauman were individually
liable under § 1983. However, to reach the issue of the Sheriff’s
liability under Monell, the verdict form only required the jurors to
answer “yes” to questions one and two: that Gaddis or Bauman (1)
had subjective knowledge of the risk that Escano-Reyes would
commit suicide and (2) were deliberately indifferent to that risk.
In the end, the jury answered “yes” to questions one and two
on the verdict form. In other words, the jury found that Gaddis
and Bauman had subjective knowledge of the risk that Escano-
8 The jury found for Rogers on the state-law claims against Gaddis and Bau-
man and awarded her $1,762,500 in damages.
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 13 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 13
Reyes would commit suicide and that they were deliberately indif-
ferent to that risk. However, the jury did not find that their delib-
erate indifference caused Escano-Reyes’ death and therefore deter-
mined that Gaddis and Bauman were not liable under § 1983. But
the jury made the requisite finding on the verdict form to address
the Sheriff’s liability under Monell, and as we noted, it returned a
verdict for Rogers on that claim.
After trial, the Sheriff renewed his prior motion for judg-
ment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b). In the alternative, the
Sheriff sought relief under Rule 59(e), asking the district court to
remove him from the judgment. Before these motions were de-
cided, the Sheriff timely appealed to this Court.
In his Rule 50(b) motion, the Sheriff argued that Rogers
failed to introduce evidence that the Jail’s policies were deliberately
indifferent to a known or obvious risk of suicide. The Sheriff con-
tended that he should otherwise be removed from the judgment
under Rule 59(e). According to the Sheriff, the jury’s finding that
Gaddis and Bauman were not individually liable under § 1983 con-
stituted a determination that Escano-Reyes’ constitutional rights
were not violated. And without a constitutional violation, the
Sheriff argued, an element of Monell liability was missing, and the
judgment should be amended to remove him as a liable party. The
district court denied relief, finding “no basis . . . to set aside the ver-
dict or the resulting judgment against the Sheriff under Rule 50(b)
or Rule 59(e).” The Sheriff then amended his notice of appeal to
include the denial of his post-trial motions.
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 14 of 21
14 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Judgment as a Matter of Law
“A Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law is re-
viewed de novo, and this Court applies the same standards em-
ployed by the district court.” Abel v. Dubberly,
210 F.3d 1334, 1337
(11th Cir. 2000). “In deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of
law, we review all the evidence, drawing all reasonable inferences
in favor of the nonmoving party.” Hubbard v. BankAtlantic Ban-
corp, Inc.,
688 F.3d 713, 724 (11th Cir. 2012). However, “the non-
movant must put forth more than a mere scintilla of evidence sug-
gesting that reasonable minds could reach differing verdicts.” Abel,
210 F.3d at 1337. Accordingly, granting a motion under Rule 50 is
only “proper when the evidence is so weighted in favor of one side
that that party is entitled to succeed in his or her position as a mat-
ter of law.” Thorne v. All Restoration Servs., Inc.,
448 F.3d 1264,
1266 (11th Cir. 2006).
B. Amending a Judgment
“We review the denial of a Rule 59 motion for abuse of dis-
cretion.” Arthur v. King,
500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). Im-
portantly, “Rule 59(e) allows courts to alter judgments only where
there is ‘newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or
fact.’” Samara v. Taylor,
38 F.4th 141, 149 (11th Cir. 2022) (quoting
EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc.,
842 F.3d 1333, 1349 (11th Cir.
2016)).
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 15 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 15
IV. ANALYSIS
A. The Sheriff’s Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law
The Sheriff contends that the evidence at trial failed to show
that the Jail’s policies constituted deliberate indifference to a
known or obvious consequence of suicide. He thus claims that the
district court should have granted his motions for judgment as a
matter of law. Having reviewed the evidence de novo, we do not
agree.
To succeed on a § 1983 claim under Monell, a plaintiff must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, “(1) that his constitu-
tional rights were violated; (2) that the municipality had a custom
or policy that constituted deliberate indifference to that constitu-
tional right; and (3) that the policy or custom caused the violation.”
McDowell v. Brown,
392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004); see also
Monell,
436 U.S. at 694. In a jail suicide case, a § 1983 claim under
the Fourteenth Amendment requires the plaintiff to show that the
defendant “displayed ‘deliberate indifference’ to the prisoner’s tak-
ing of his own life.” Edwards v. Gilbert,
867 F.2d 1271, 1274–75
(11th Cir. 1989). “‘[D]eliberate indifference’ is a stringent standard
of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known
or obvious consequence of his action.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of
Bryan Cnty. v. Brown,
520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997). More specifically,
the deliberate indifference standard “requires a strong likelihood
rather than a mere possibility that the self-infliction of harm will
occur.” Popham v. City of Talladega,
908 F.2d 1561, 1563 (11th
Cir. 1990).
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 16 of 21
16 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
The record in this case contains sufficient evidence that the
Jail’s policies constituted deliberate indifference to Escano-Reyes’
constitutional rights. The Jail knew that Escano-Reyes was sui-
cidal. Nonetheless, the Jail’s policies allowed Escano-Reyes to be
placed in a cell with a metal partition on which a ligature could be
tied and with the majority of its windows concealed by curtains or
other coverings. And contrary to the Jail’s written procedures, its
custom allowed deputies to monitor Escano-Reyes by performing
a solely visual check—in this case, merely seeing flashes of move-
ment—from the booking desk rather than confirming that he was
safe. While liability is inappropriate where only “the mere oppor-
tunity for suicide, without more,” exists, Tittle v. Jefferson Cnty.
Comm’n,
10 F.3d 1535, 1540 (11th Cir. 1994), the evidence in this
case established far more than the mere possibility that Escano-
Reyes would inflict self-harm.
We are not persuaded by the Sheriff’s arguments that the
circumstances were insufficient to create a known or obvious risk
of suicide. The Sheriff contends, for instance, that he lacked notice
of the risk that Escano-Reyes would commit suicide with the sui-
cide smock. But the United States Supreme Court has held that “a
factfinder may conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial
risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.” Farmer v. Bren-
nan,
511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994). 9 Here, the Jail’s own representative
9 Farmer concerned a claim for deliberate indifference under the Eighth
Amendment.
511 U.S. at 828–29. Although Rogers’ Monell claim arises under
the Fourteenth Amendment, Farmer remains relevant for our analysis. See
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 17 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 17
conceded at trial that the practice of housing suicidal inmates in a
cell with a partially concealed interior both impeded adequate
monitoring and posed an obvious risk. Moreover, an official need
not have knowledge of the precise risk that ultimately materializes;
awareness of “an obvious, substantial risk to inmate safety” is
enough.
Id. at 843. In this case, the evidence at trial showed that
the Jail’s policies—placing an inmate in a cell with partially con-
cealed windows and with a partition on which a ligature could be
tied, and allowing deputies to monitor that inmate by catching mo-
mentary glimpses of him through a window—created an obvious
risk of suicide.
Our task is to “determine ‘whether or not reasonable jurors
could have concluded as this jury did based on the evidence pre-
sented.’” Combs v. Plantation Patterns,
106 F.3d 1519, 1526 (11th
Cir. 1997) (quoting Quick v. Peoples Bank,
993 F.2d 793, 797 (11th
Cir. 1993)). We have reviewed the record de novo, and we con-
clude that Rogers presented sufficient evidence of deliberate indif-
ference to require submitting this matter to a jury in the first in-
stance and to support the jury’s ultimate verdict. As such, the
Tittle, 10 F.3d at 1539 (noting that “[w]hether the alleged violation is reviewed
under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment is immaterial” because, in either
posture, a plaintiff in a prisoner suicide case must show that a jail official acted
with deliberate indifference).
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 18 of 21
18 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
Sheriff was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the
district court did not err by denying his Rule 50 motions.
B. The Sheriff’s Motion to Amend the Judgment
The Sheriff asserts that the jury was required to find either
Gaddis or Bauman liable under § 1983 as an element of Monell lia-
bility. He is incorrect.
We begin by briefly explaining the Sheriff’s argument. As
stated previously, a plaintiff bringing a Monell claim must show (1)
the violation of a constitutional right, (2) that a municipality had a
custom or policy of deliberate indifference to that right and (3) that
the custom or policy caused the violation. McDowell,
392 F.3d at
1289. In the Sheriff’s view, the first component—a constitutional
violation—requires a plaintiff to establish the same elements that
form an individual § 1983 claim. That is, to show a constitutional
violation for the purposes of Monell liability, a plaintiff must estab-
lish, as to an individual, “(1) a substantial risk of serious harm; (2)
the [individual’s] deliberate indifference to that risk; and (3) causa-
tion.” Hale v. Tallapoosa County,
50 F.3d 1579, 1582 (11th Cir.
1995). But in this case, the jury found only (1) and (2) as to Gaddis
and Bauman and attributed (3), causation, to the Sheriff instead.
According to the Sheriff, because the jury found that Gaddis and
Bauman were not liable under § 1983, no constitutional violation
occurred, and Rogers’ Monell claim necessarily failed.
The issue before us, then, is whether individual liability un-
der § 1983 is a necessary element of municipal liability under
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 19 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 19
Monell. We addressed this question in Barnett v. MacArthur,
956
F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2020). In that case, a deputy arrested the plain-
tiff for driving under the influence and transported her to jail.
Id. at
1295. The jail’s hold policy required detaining a DUI arrestee for
eight hours, even in the absence of positive test results and even if
the arrestee posted bond.
Id. Two breath samples showed no al-
cohol or drug content, and the plaintiff posted bond—but she was
nonetheless detained for eight hours pursuant to the jail’s hold pol-
icy.
Id. at 1295–96. The plaintiff sued the arresting deputy under §
1983 and the sheriff under § 1983 and Monell, alleging against both
the violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 1293. The
district court granted summary judgment to the sheriff on the Mo-
nell claim, and later, a jury returned a verdict in favor of the deputy.
Id. The plaintiff appealed, and we reversed the district court’s sum-
mary judgment ruling. Id.
On appeal, the sheriff argued that he could not be liable be-
cause “the jury verdict mean[t] that there was no Fourth Amend-
ment violation, and without a Fourth Amendment violation there
cannot be municipal liability under Monell.” Id. at 1301. We re-
jected this “superficially seductive” “syllogism” and reiterated our
prior holding that “Monell . . . and its progeny do not require that
a jury must first find an individual defendant liable before imposing
liability on local government.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting
Anderson v. City of Atlanta,
778 F.2d 678, 686 (11th Cir. 1985)).
Indeed, “municipal liability can exist if a jury finds that a
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 20 of 21
20 Opinion of the Court 21-13994
constitutional injury is due to a municipal policy, custom, or prac-
tice, but also finds that no officer is individually liable for the viola-
tion.”
Id.
Such is the case here. The jury’s verdict represents a finding
that the Jail’s policies—not the actions of the individual deputies—
were the “‘moving force’ [behind] the constitutional violation.”
City of Canton v. Harris,
489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989) (alteration in orig-
inal) (quoting Monell,
436 U.S. at 694). The Sheriff conflates the
elements of a § 1983 claim against an individual officer with Mo-
nell’s requirement of a constitutional violation. They are not one
and the same. Barnett forecloses the Sheriff’s argument, and ac-
cordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s de-
nial of relief under Rule 59(e). 10
10 The Sheriff also contends that the verdict form was incorrect because it
allowed the jurors to reach the question of Monell liability without finding all
three elements of individual § 1983 liability as to either Gaddis or Bauman. He
did not, however, raise this issue while the jury was still empaneled. To the
extent that the Sheriff’s argument sounds in verdict inconsistency, he likely
waived it by failing to timely assert the issue. See Reider v. Philip Morris USA,
Inc.,
793 F.3d 1254, 1259 (11th Cir. 2015) (explaining that “[a] party must object
to a verdict as inconsistent before the jury has been dismissed” and that “fail-
ure to object to an inconsistent verdict before the jury is excused forfeits the
objection”). But because Barnett is dispositive of the relationship between in-
dividual liability under § 1983 and liability under Monell, we assume without
deciding that the Sheriff did not waive this argument.
USCA11 Case: 21-13994 Document: 63-1 Date Filed: 03/20/2023 Page: 21 of 21
21-13994 Opinion of the Court 21
V. CONCLUSION
We have reviewed the record in this case and found no error
in the district court’s denial of the Sheriff’s motions for judgment
as a matter of law. Likewise, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying the Sheriff’s motion to amend the judgment
under Rule 59(e).
AFFIRMED.
