R. v. Scott County, Mississippi ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 14, 2023
No. 22-60124 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
S. R., a minor child by and through his guardian Kelley Musgrove and
as Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and as survivors of Miranda Musgrove;
A. A., a minor child by and through her guardian Judy Evans and as
Wrongful Death Beneficiaries and as survivors of Miranda Musgrove,
Plaintiffs—Appellants,
versus
Scott County, Mississippi; Zac Holland; Deputy Sheriff
Cody May; John Does 1-5,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:19-CV-737
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
This appeal involves the arrest and in-custody death of Miranda
Musgrove. The district court granted defendants’ motions for summary
judgment. We affirm.
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
I.
A.
At 7:23 p.m. on July 10, 2018, a man called 911 to report a disturbance
outside his house in Scott County, Mississippi. Sheriff’s Deputy Zack
Holland arrived at 7:38 p.m. and found Miranda Musgrove and Sheila
Matthews screaming at one another. Musgrove was holding her four-year-old
daughter, A.A.
Deputy Holland separated the women, called for backup, and talked
with each woman individually to figure out what was going on. But as
Musgrove tried to describe the situation to Deputy Holland, her story
jumped among topics, and her movements were erratic. The same behavior
continued throughout the encounter.
Deputy Holland asked Musgrove if she needed medical attention.
Musgrove responded, “No.” But after Musgrove’s erratic behavior
continued and Deputy Holland noticed that Musgrove had “white foam”
coming from both sides of her mouth, Deputy Holland called an ambulance
at 7:45 p.m. for “a female subject out here under the influence of something.”
A minute later, Deputy Holland radioed for an ambulance a second time, and
Musgrove yelled, “I don’t need an ambulance!” Around that time, A.A.
began to cry and reach for Deputy Holland. Afraid for the child’s safety,
Deputy Holland asked Musgrove if he could hold A.A. while they talked.
Musgrove agreed.
While Deputy Holland waited for the ambulance and backup to arrive,
he tried again to piece together the situation. But Musgrove oscillated among
talking about several disjointed topics, angrily threatening to hurt various
onlookers in the neighborhood, and asking Deputy Holland for help. For
example, she talked about getting in a fight with someone named Charlie and
breaking his meth pipe; she said multiple times that she hadn’t taken any of
2
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
her anxiety medicine; and she continued to repeat various other cryptic
things like “I need to get away from here,” “He did this to me,” “I took
something to drink and started feeling this way,” and “Charlie set me up.”
The encounter largely continued in the same way—“Musgrove talking about
Charlie, at times asking for help in serious tones, moving suddenly and
unpredictably, and making threats.”
Roughly 20 minutes after the encounter began, Sheriff’s Deputy Cody
May (the requested backup) arrived at the scene. The paramedics arrived
soon after. The paramedics asked, “Have you had any drugs or alcohol
today?” Musgrove said “no.” The paramedics explained again that they
were there to help and that Musgrove needed to be honest with them about
whether she had consumed any drugs or alcohol. Again, she denied
consuming any substances. Nevertheless, the paramedics asked Musgrove
multiple times if she wanted to go to the hospital and tried to convince her to
go with them. Musgrove declined.
After Musgrove became even more aggressive and accusatory, the
Deputies placed her under arrest for public intoxication, disorderly conduct,
and child endangerment. The Deputies then repeatedly asked Musgrove
whether a family member could pick up A.A. to avoid calling the Mississippi
Department of Human Services (“DHS”). Musgrove refused, so Deputy
May called for a DHS worker. While they waited for DHS to dispatch
someone, Deputy May continued to ask Musgrove to provide a family
member’s phone number. Eventually—after many minutes of Musgrove
screaming at and accusing everyone at the scene—she calmed down and gave
Deputy May a phone number for Judy Evans, A.A.’s great-grandmother.
Evans agreed to take custody of A.A. Deputy Holland transported
A.A. and Musgrove together to meet Evans as well as Musgrove’s mother,
Kelley Danos. Musgrove was unruly throughout the trip. She screamed,
3
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
cursed, and even tried to kick the windows out of the patrol car. After the
Deputies told her many times to calm down, she eventually laid down across
the back seat and continued to mutter to herself. While Deputy Holland
transitioned A.A. to Evans’s car, Deputy May and Danos checked on
Musgrove who “appeared to be asleep and still breathing normally.” May
informed Danos that the paramedics had already been called to check on
Musgrove and that he would have the nurse assess her at the police station.
The Deputies then drove Musgrove to the Scott County Detention
Center. Musgrove talked intermittently during the 15-mile ride and sat back
up at one point before laying down again. When they arrived at the Detention
Center at 10:13 p.m., Musgrove was found breathing but unresponsive in the
backseat. The Deputies took her from the car, removed her handcuffs, sat her
up in a chair, and called another ambulance. Musgrove ultimately died at the
hospital from drug-induced cardiac arrest.
B.
Musgrove’s heirs filed suit, alleging violations of Musgrove’s Fourth,
Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
heirs also brought various claims under state law. Scott County and Deputies
Holland and May moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted Defendants’ summary judgment motions.
The court held that the Deputies were entitled to qualified immunity because
the undisputed facts did not support a prima facie case of deliberate
indifference, the Monell claims against the County could not proceed without
an underlying constitutional violation, see, e.g., Hicks-Fields v. Harris Cnty.,
860 F.3d 803, 808 (5th Cir. 2017) (applying Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436
U.S. 658 (1978)), and the state law claims were barred by the Mississippi Tort
4
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
Claims Act. Plaintiffs timely appealed. 1 “Our review is de novo.” Jackson v.
Gautreaux, 3 F.4th 182, 186 (5th Cir. 2021).
II.
We hold Plaintiffs are not entitled to a trial on their Fourteenth
Amendment claim against the Deputies, and without an underlying
constitutional claim, they are also not entitled to a trial on their Monell claim
against Scott County. We (A) articulate the relevant legal standards for
“deliberate indifference” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Then we
(B) conclude that Plaintiffs fail to carry their burden to overcome the
Deputies’ qualified immunity.
A.
The Deputies asserted qualified immunity in the district court, so
Plaintiffs bear the burden of overcoming the defense. Cass v. City of Abilene,
814 F.3d 721, 728 (5th Cir. 2016). To overcome it, Plaintiffs must prove
“(1) that the official[s] violated a statutory or constitutional right, and
(2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged
conduct.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 735 (2011) (quoting Harlow v.
Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)). We can base our decision on either
prong. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).
As to the first prong, Plaintiffs present only a Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process claim. 2 We have held that “due process” implicitly provides
1
Plaintiffs have not raised the state law claims on appeal, so they are forfeited. See
Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 276 (5th Cir. 1998).
2
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
But Plaintiffs’ complaint lacks any allegation resembling a Fourth Amendment challenge.
And the Eighth Amendment does not apply to detainees before a formal adjudication of
guilt. Revere v. Mass Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244 (1983). We have nonetheless held that
pretrial detainees’ Fourteenth Amendment claims are governed by the same legal
5
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
substantive protection against “deliberate indifference” to pretrial
detainees’ “serious medical needs.” Thompson v. Upshur Cnty., 245 F.3d
447, 457 (5th Cir. 2001). “[A] serious medical need is one for which
treatment has been recommended or for which the need is so apparent that
even laymen would recognize that care is required.” Sims v. Griffin, 35 F.4th
945, 949 (5th Cir. 2022) (quotation omitted). And “[d]eliberate indifference
[to such needs] is an extremely high standard to meet.” Domino v. Tex. Dep’t
of Crim. Just., 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). Specifically, Plaintiffs must
prove the officers (1) were “aware of facts from which the inference could be
drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists,” (2) that they “actually
drew the inference,” and (3) that they “disregarded that risk.” Baldwin v.
Dorsey, 964 F.3d 320, 326 (5th Cir. 2020) (quotation omitted). In other
words, Plaintiffs must show that Deputies Holland and May subjectively
believed Musgrove was at a substantial risk of overdosing and that they
nevertheless “refused to treat h[er], ignored h[er] complaints, intentionally
treated h[er] incorrectly, or engaged in any similar conduct that would clearly
evince a wanton disregard for [her] serious medical needs.” Davis v.
Lumpkin, 35 F.4th 958, 963 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Johnson v. Treen, 759
F.2d 1236, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985)).
B.
Plaintiffs do not meet their burden. Even if we assume Plaintiffs could
satisfy the first deliberate-indifference prong, there is no way they could
satisfy prongs two or three.
standards the Supreme Court uses for prisoners’ Eighth Amendment claims. Baughman v.
Hickman, 935 F.3d 302, 306 (5th Cir. 2019). So our analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment
subsumes Plaintiffs’ claims under the Eighth.
6
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
1.
We start with prong two. Plaintiffs have not identified any evidence
that would suggest Deputies Holland and May believed Musgrove had a
substantial risk of overdosing. The only direct evidence comes from their
depositions. There, both Deputies explained that they did not believe
Musgrove was in immediate danger. Even if the Deputies were mistaken in
this belief, it is well established that “the failure to alleviate a significant risk
that the [Deputies] should have perceived, but did not[,] is insufficient to
show deliberate indifference.” Domino, 239 F.3d at 756; see also Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 838 (1994) (same).
Footage from the Deputies’ bodycams does not change that result.
True, Musgrove made sporadic claims for help and cryptically referred to a
man named Charlie. But in context, Musgrove’s statements would not
suggest to a reasonable observer that she was at serious risk of overdosing.
That is because Musgrove repeatedly told the Deputies and paramedics that
she had not ingested any drugs or alcohol, that she was acting the way she
was because she had not taken her anxiety medication, and that she did not
need to go to the hospital. The videos clearly show that Musgrove was
conscious, able to stand by herself, and capable of carrying on a conversation
(albeit a disjointed one). Thus, the bodycam footage suggests at the very most
that Musgrove needed the Deputies to help protect her and her daughter
from someone named Charlie and that she might be under the influence of
something, not that she was at a substantial risk of overdosing.
Plaintiffs respond that “[t]his case is not about whether the officers
knew about a potential overdose specifically.” Rather, Plaintiffs assert the
Deputies believed Musgrove had taken some substance, and that should be
sufficient to create a triable issue of fact on the Deputies’ awareness of a
substantial risk. Our precedent forecloses that contention. See, e.g., Brown v.
7
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
Strain, 663 F.3d 245, 250–51 (5th Cir. 2011) (“[Defendant] gives no
persuasive reason why Plaintiffs’ allegations that he was aware that Brown
had overdosed on cocaine and needed immediate medical treatment are
legally insufficient to either support their claim or defeat his qualified
immunity defense.”); O’Neal v. City of San Antonio, 344 F. App’x 885, 890
(5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (holding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
second deliberate-indifference prong—even though the officers witnessed
decedent consume crack cocaine—because “the officers were unaware of an
excessive risk of an overdose”).
Plaintiffs also assert that the Deputies were on notice of a substantial
risk because the paramedics told them that Musgrove needed to go to the
hospital. But the paramedics said no such thing. As the bodycam footage and
the Deputies’ depositions make abundantly clear, the paramedics voluntarily
released Musgrove into police custody after she refused examination, and the
paramedics never told Deputy Holland or May that Musgrove needed urgent
medical attention. See Tamez v. Manthey, 589 F.3d 764, 770–71 (5th Cir.
2009) (rejecting a similar claim where “the Tamez Family’s brief argues that
Nurse Esquivel told the detectives to take Tamez to the hospital
immediately” because nothing in the record supported the assertion).
Finally, Plaintiffs claim that Musgrove’s behavior in the back seat of
Holland’s patrol vehicle “was a marked change from Ms. Musgrove’s prior
state and should have alerted the officers to an increased need for a hospital.”
Again, Plaintiffs have no evidence for this assertion. Deputy Holland
explained that Musgrove talked on and off throughout the drive, and both
Deputies claimed that Musgrove sat up at least once during that same 15-mile
ride. Absent other information, this behavior does not indicate a substantial
risk of an overdose. Regardless, deliberate-indifference “liability attaches
only if [the Deputies] actually knew—not merely should have known—about
the risk.” Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 528 (5th Cir.
8
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
1999); see also Domino, 239 F.3d at 756 (“[A]n incorrect diagnosis does not
amount to deliberate indifference.”). Plaintiffs fail to identify any evidence
that either Deputy interpreted Musgrove’s behavior as a sign of overdose or
otherwise believed that serious harm was about to befall her.
2.
As for the third deliberate-indifference prong, the Deputies
responded to the situation with tact and care, not “reckless[] disregard[].”
Garza v. City of Donna, 922 F.3d 626, 635 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting Farmer,
511 U.S. at 836). Recall that to satisfy the third prong, Plaintiffs must prove
that the Deputies “refused to treat [Musgrove], ignored [Musgrove’s]
complaints, intentionally treated [Musgrove] incorrectly, or engaged in any
similar conduct that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for
[Musgrove’s] serious medical needs.” Davis, 35 F.4th at 963 (quotation
omitted).
Deputies Holland and May did none of the above. Instead, they called
an ambulance—even after Musgrove had repeatedly denied consuming any
drugs or alcohol and repeatedly refused medical attention. They went out of
their way to comfort A.A. and place the child with relatives so that she
wouldn’t be surrendered to DHS. While they were transferring A.A. to
Evans and Danos, May informed Danos he would have the nurse assess
Musgrove again at the police station. And once they finally arrived at the
police station and found Musgrove unresponsive, they quickly took her from
the car, removed her handcuffs, sat her up in a chair, and called another
ambulance. “Even if those steps were ‘ineffectual,’ they do not demonstrate
deliberate indifference.” Southard v. Tex. Bd. of Crim. Just., 114 F.3d 539, 554
(5th Cir. 1997); see also Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 995 F.3d 395, 421 (5th
Cir. 2021) (“While these measures may have been inadequate, Plaintiffs do
9
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
not present any evidence that the Officers knew they were insufficient and
intentionally failed to do more out of indifference to Aguirre’s well-being.”).
To all this, Plaintiffs simply assert that the Deputies were deliberately
indifferent by taking Musgrove to the police station and not directly to the
hospital. But “[t]o accept appellant’s claim would be to mandate as a matter
of constitutional law that officers take all criminal suspects under the
influence of drugs or alcohol to hospital emergency rooms rather than
detention centers. That would be a startling step to take.” Grayson v. Peed,
195 F.3d 692, 696 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Sanchez v. Young Cnty., 866 F.3d
274, 281 (5th Cir. 2017) (“The Constitution does not require that officers
always take arrestees suspected to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol
. . . to a hospital against their wishes.”).
Finally, Plaintiffs assert that the Deputies “wast[ed] 45 minutes
waiting in the parking lot [waiting for Evans and Danos] after leaving the
scene.” But this argument is even more deficient than the last. That is
because “the reason for delay in this case”—to place four-year-old A.A. with
family members—“is a legitimate governmental objective.” Baldwin, 973
F.2d at 327; see also Rhyne v. Henderson County, 973 F.2d 386, 391 (5th Cir.
1992) (“Pre-trial detainees . . . must be provided with reasonable medical
care, unless the failure to supply it is reasonably related to a legitimate
government objective.” (quotation omitted)). Moreover, a 45-minute delay
is insubstantial in this situation where Musgrove had denied medical
attention repeatedly and did not appear to be at risk of overdose. At the very
least, the delay certainly wasn’t “wanton” or “reckless.” Baughman v.
Hickman, 935 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 2019) (“The ‘official conduct must be
“wanton,” which is defined to mean “reckless.”’” (quoting Alderson v.
Concordia Par. Corr. Facility, 848 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2017)); cf. Bias v.
Woods, 288 F. App’x 158 (5th Cir. 2008) (affirming a finding of deliberate
indifference where a prison physician, rather than providing immediate
10
Case: 22-60124 Document: 00516712155 Page: 11 Date Filed: 04/14/2023
No. 22-60124
medical attention, ordered that a prisoner who had been nearly unconscious
for 12 to 16 hours be transported to a different prison 150-miles away).
* * *
There is no evidence that Deputies Holland and May were aware of a
substantial risk to Musgrove, much less that they chose to disregard it. And
because the Monell claims against Scott County cannot proceed without an
underlying constitutional violation, see Hicks-Fields, 860 F.3d at 808,
summary judgment as to both the Deputies and the County is AFFIRMED.
11