Ratcliff v. Daniel ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 99-30901
ELLIS N. RATCLIFF, SR.; FRANCES MAE TAYLOR,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
VERSUS
WILLIS M. DANIEL, ET AL,
Defendants,
WILLIS M. DANIEL; SCOTT BRAUD; RANDALL W. METZ; STEVEN D. NEAL;
SPHERE DRAKE INS, PLC,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Louisiana
(96-CV-24)
June 29, 2000
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:1
Plaintiffs-Appellants Ellis Ratcliff, Sr. and Frances Mae
Taylor (the “Appellants”), the parents of Ellis Ratcliff, Jr.
(“Ratcliff”) brought this Louisiana wrongful death and survivor
action against Defendants-Appellees William Daniel, Scott Braud,
Randall Metz, Steven Neal, and Sphere Drake Insurance
(collectively, the “Appellees”), after Ratcliff died while
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
imprisoned at West Feliciana Parish Jail. The district court
granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees. We reverse and
remand.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On a Friday, Ratcliff borrowed a friend's car to drive from
Baton Rouge to St. Francisville, La. to assist his family in
preparing for his grandmother's funeral. En route back to Baton
Rouge, a West Feliciana Parish Sheriff's Deputy discovered that
Ratcliff was driving a stolen car and pulled him over. Deputy
Scott Braud (“Braud”) booked Ratcliff at the parish jail. Ratcliff
was upset and crying during the booking, apparently at the prospect
of missing his grandmother's funeral the next day. While Braud did
not indicate on the booking paperwork that Ratcliff posed a suicide
threat, Braud called Sheriff William Daniel (“Daniel”) to ask where
to put Ratcliff. Daniel directed that Ratcliff be dressed in a
prison jumpsuit and placed in the “detox” cell. Daniel also
directed Braud and Deputy Steven Neal (“Neal”) to keep a very close
eye on Ratcliff. The detox cell is the cell closest to the jail
control room and is in a location where the deputies can
continuously monitor the resident inmate.
Ratcliff spent Friday night in the detox cell. On Saturday,
Ratcliff asked Deputy Daigle (“Daigle”) if he could go to his
grandmother's funeral. Daigle contacted the Sheriff who stated
that, due to the seriousness of the charges, such a trip would not
be possible. By Saturday morning, Ratcliff had apparently stopped
crying but, according to Daigle, seemed somewhat upset. Later on
2
Saturday, Ratcliff was moved from the detox cell to cell D. Cell
D is more isolated than the detox cell, and the deputies can not
continuously watch an inmate housed in cell D. At all relevant
times, Ratcliff was the only inmate in cell D. A number of other
inmates stated, in deposition testimony, that they observed
Ratcliff crying and upset off and on during Saturday.
About 3 p.m. on Saturday, Ratcliff was taken to the “lawyer's
room” at the jail for interrogation by Deputy Randall Metz
(“Metz”). During the interrogation, Ratcliff asked Metz if he
could be released to go to his grandmother's funeral and Metz
agreed to ask the Sheriff. Ratcliff was returned to cell D by Metz
sometime between 4-4:30 p.m.
In his deposition testimony, inmate John Hubbard (“Hubbard”)
stated that he saw something white flash in Ratcliff's cell about
4:20 p.m. Hubbard stated that, given how upset Ratcliff seemed, he
thought Ratcliff might have hanged himself, but he alerted no one.
About 4:35 p.m., inmate Isaac Washington allegedly heard a beating
sound in one of the other cells. He testified that he hollered to
find out what was going on but got no response. Around 4:40 p.m.,
an inmate, who was passing out dinner, found Ratcliff hanging from
a bed sheet in cell D.
Deputies on the scene attempted to revive Ratcliff but to no
avail. That evening Dr. Emil Laga (“Laga”) performed a coroner's
autopsy on Ratcliff. His report listed the cause of death as
“acute asphyxiation, possibly resulting from hanging,” but the mode
of death was listed as “undetermined, pending further
3
investigation.” At the time of the autopsy, Laga did not have
access to the sheet with which Ratcliff allegedly hanged himself.
At the request of Ratcliff's family, Dr. Alfredo Suarez
(“Suarez”) examined Ratcliff's body. Suarez found that the
ligature mark on Ratcliff's neck was a quarter inch wide, and that
the mark had a braided pattern. Suarez concluded that the markings
were most likely caused by a braided rope or cord, not a bed sheet.
Suarez also noted that, in a hanging, the ligature mark usually
runs in an upward “V” pattern across the neck, whereas the mark on
Ratcliff's neck was horizontal - as if Ratcliff had been strangled
from behind. Suarez concluded that the injuries on Ratcliff were
more consistent with strangulation by a rope or cord than a hanging
with bed sheets. In his deposition, Suarez concluded that
Ratcliff's death was most likely the result of a homicide.
When Laga finally obtained the sheet with which Ratlciff had
allegedly hanged himself, he noticed that the sheet could not be
twisted in such a manner that would leave a mark as narrow as that
on Ratcliff's neck. Furthermore, the sheet did not have any blood
or vomit stains, which was unusual. He also noted that a bed sheet
would not leave such a distinctive braided pattern. Laga further
noted that hanging by a bed sheet normally would leave a
circumferential ligature mark and a bruise on the back of the neck
where the sheet was tied. On Ratcliff the ligature mark ended
abruptly and there was no knot imprint. Like Suarez, Laga
concluded that it was unlikely Ratcliff had died by hanging himself
with a bed sheet.
4
PROCEEDINGS
The Appellants initially brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
against the Appellees. The district court granted Appellees'
motion for summary judgment, and the decision was upheld without
substantive comment by this court. See Ratcliff v. Daniel, No. 95-
30654 (5th Cir. April 9, 1996).
Appellants then filed this wrongful death and survivor action.
In this action, they advance two theories of liability against the
Defendants. First, they contend that Ratcliff was either killed by
one or more of the Appellees, or by someone given access to
Ratcliff by the Appellees. Under this theory, Appellants claim
that the Appellees are liable for negligently failing to protect
Ratcliff from harm. Alternatively, Appellants contend that
Ratcliff may have committed suicide. Under the second theory,
Appellants contend that the Appellees were negligent in failing to
monitor Ratcliff and take steps to prevent him from committing
suicide.
The Appellees moved for summary judgment, and their motion was
referred to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge's report and
recommendation determined that there were a number of genuine
issues of material fact in dispute, and therefore the motion should
be denied. The district court originally agreed with the
magistrate's report and denied the motion for summary judgment.
Seven months later, however, the district court, acting on its own
motion, decided to reconsider its earlier decision denying the
Appellees' motion.
5
After a hearing on the matter, the district court granted
Appellees' motion for summary judgment. Regarding the Appellants'
strangulation claim, The court concluded that “there is absolutely
no evidence in the record that any of the named defendants
strangled the decedent.” Nor, the court held, was there evidence
that the Appellees had given someone other than the named
Defendants access to Ratcliff. With regard to Appellees' failure
to protect Ratcliff from self-inflicted injury, the court concluded
that there was no evidence in the record indicating the Appellees
had reason to believe that Ratcliff was suicidal.
DISCUSSION
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the
facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the party
opposing the motion. See Hall v. Gillman, Inc., 81 F.3d 35, 36-37
(5th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is appropriate if the record
discloses “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Courts must also determine whether an
inference or circumstantial evidence might suffice to create a
factual dispute. Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d 1190, 1195 (5th
Cir. 1986). The district court's function at the summary judgment
stage is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
We first note that the Appellants make only negligence claims
6
before this court and not intentional tort claims: (1) They claim
the Appellees are liable for negligently failing to protect
Ratcliff from harm; (2) they claim that Appellees are negligent in
failing to monitor Ratcliff and failing to prevent him from
committing suicide. A plaintiff may prove a negligence claim
through circumstantial evidence. See Cangelosi v. Our lady of the
Lake Reg'l Med. Ctr., 564 So. 2d 654, 664 (La. 1989) (The Louisiana
Supreme Court held that in a circumstantial evidence case the
plaintiff must produce evidence from which the factfinder can
reasonably conclude that his injuries, more probably than not, were
caused by the negligence of a particular defendant. “The
plaintiff, however, does not have to conclusively exclude all other
possible explanations for his injuries, because the standard is not
proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”).
As we noted, circumstantial evidence taken as a whole is often
sufficient to produce an issue of material fact and therefore make
summary judgment unnecessary. We find that to be the situation in
this case. The testimony of the two doctors certainly produces an
issue of material fact as to whether the Appellees negligently
failed to protect Ratcliff from harm by others than himself. The
testimony of the deputies and inmates stating that Ratcliff was
upset and unhappy creates an issue of material fact as to whether
the Appellees were negligent in failing to monitor Ratcliff to
protect him from harming himself. This is not a case that should
be disposed of through summary judgment. In a case like this, the
jury is free to believe or not to believe and to choose among the
7
circumstantial evidence presented. The district court on summary
judgment cannot accept some evidence and reject other evidence, but
a jury can.
For these reasons, we reverse the district court and remand.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
8