Phillip Cordell Fikes v. Patrick Collard

Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 1 of 25
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-12373
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 7:16-cv-00843-LSC
PHILLIP CORDELL FIKES,
as the personal representative of the Estate of Phillip David Anderson,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RON ABERNATHY, et al.,
Defendants,
PATRICK COLLARD,
KENNETH ABRAMS,
Defendants - Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(November 8, 2019)
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 2 of 25
Before MARCUS, JULIE CARNES, and KELLY, * Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Phillip Anderson died of a perforated duodenal ulcer while in custody at the
Tuscaloosa County jail. Phillip Fikes, his son and the personal representative of
his estate, brought this civil rights action against Deputy Sergeant Kenneth Abrams
and Detention Officer Patrick Collard and other officials, alleging that they acted
with deliberate indifference to Anderson’s serious medical needs in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. Abrams and Collard moved for summary judgment on the
basis of qualified immunity; the district court denied the motion. Abrams and
Collard then filed this interlocutory appeal.
After careful review, we affirm. The facts taken in the light most favorable
to Fikes state a violation of Anderson’s clearly established constitutional rights. A
jail official who knows that an inmate is suffering from a serious medical condition
and is deliberately indifferent to his needs violates the Constitution. This summary
judgment record, when taken in Fikes’s favor, shows that Abrams and Collard
interacted with Anderson repeatedly during his short time in custody, that his
serious and intensifying need for further medical treatment was clear and obvious
to a lay observer, and that Abrams and Collard mocked and ignored the inmate’s
*
Honorable Paul J. Kelly, Jr., United States Circuit Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
2
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 3 of 25
complaints. If these allegations are true, Officers Collard and Abrams are not
entitled to qualified immunity and we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I.
Because we are reviewing the district court’s denial of summary judgment,
we begin with a description of the facts taken in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff and our decision must accept those facts. Feliciano v. City of Miami
Beach, 707 F.3d 1244, 1247 (11th Cir. 2013). Phillip Anderson was arrested on
February 7, 2015, on an outstanding warrant for contempt of court after he failed to
appear at a child support hearing. During the intake process at the Tuscaloosa
County jail that day, Anderson reported that he had health issues and took three
daily medications -- propananol for hyperthyroidism, albuterol for COPD, and
tromodol for shoulder pain. On February 9, 2015, Anderson saw Dr. Phillip Bobo,
a doctor employed by a nonprofit that provided medical services for the jail. Dr.
Bobo prescribed naproxen, an anti-inflammatory drug, which Anderson took
several times before refusing to take this medicine. Fikes claims that Anderson
never received his usual daily medication. On February 12, Anderson’s daughter
Erica Fikes visited the jail to deliver his thyroid medication, but she was told that
she could not give it to him because it was not in its original box, although the
medication was in the original bottle.
3
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 4 of 25
Anderson was ill throughout his short time in jail, suffered severe pain, and
was unable to keep food down. Appellants Kenneth Abrams, a deputy sergeant in
the Tuscaloosa County Sheriff’s Office, and Patrick Collard, a detention officer,
were shift supervisors covering the area where Anderson was held. Collard
worked on five of the eight days leading up to Anderson’s death, and Abrams
worked on four.
Two inmates in Anderson’s cellblock claimed that “Abrams and Collard
bull[ied] Mr. Anderson by making fun of him and yelling at him to get up and quit
faking . . . even though it was obvious that Mr. Anderson was in terrible pain and
just getting worse by the day.” Decl. of Kenneth Brifford at 3; Decl. of Eric Ligon
at 3. Each of them recalled that Abrams and Collard “told Mr. Anderson that they
knew he was just faking it.” Brifford Decl. at 6; Ligon Decl. at 6. Another inmate
said that “Abrams and Collard were well aware of [Anderson’s condition] and
were a big part of the problem.” Decl. of Gaffery Buggs at 2. This inmate recalled
that Abrams and Collard “bull[ied]” Anderson and accused him of faking his
condition. He added that Abrams and Collard “seemed to have no interest
whatsoever in getting [him] the medical care he needed for his condition.” Id. at 4.
On Friday, February 13, Anderson was given medication for constipation,
including milk of magnesia and a fleet enema. The next evening, Detention
Officer Jeremiah Van Horn told the supervisor on duty that Anderson was
4
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 5 of 25
complaining of stomach pain and shortness of breath and that he had been unable
to eat for a number of days. Van Horn later said that he “thought Mr. Anderson
was in very seriously bad shape and needed immediate medical attention,” and
“that whatever the nurses had been doing for him obviously was not working as he
was in terrible pain, short of breath, and barely able to move.” Decl. of Jeremiah
Van Horn at 3. He added that Anderson “was in obviously serious, critically bad
shape in need of serious medical treatment,” and “[e]veryone present could see
that.” Id. at 5.
The supervisor called a nurse, who reported that Anderson was receiving
treatment for constipation. Another nurse said that her superiors had told her that
“Anderson [was] not going to the hospital no matter what,” and she was not willing
“to lose her job over it by sending him to the hospital.” Later, Anderson was taken
to the jail’s medical clinic. Two nurses took his temperature and blood pressure
and consulted with Dr. Bobo, who said he could not see Anderson until Monday,
February 16th, two days later. Anderson received a liquid medication that he
could not keep down; he was taken back to his cell. Around 11 p.m. on Saturday,
February 14th, the supervisor and two other detention officers saw Anderson lying
on his bed in pain, groaning and holding his stomach, and unable to speak.
Medical staff again told the detention officers that Anderson was being treated for
constipation and said that he would be put on a liquid diet the following day.
5
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 6 of 25
After midnight, two more detention officers responded to noises coming
from Anderson’s cellblock. They saw Anderson lying on the floor, moaning and
holding his stomach, which was visibly distended. They alerted a nurse, who said
that she had already informed her supervisors of his condition and that she was told
not to send Anderson to the hospital. Shortly thereafter, the supervisor directed a
detention officer to take Anderson back to the medical clinic, where he received no
additional medication before being returned to his cellblock. Several inmates
reported that Anderson screamed in pain throughout the night.
Abrams and Collard came on as daytime supervisors at 7 a.m. on February
15, 2015. Van Horn explained that incoming supervisors ordinarily are briefed
about any notable events from the night shift and anything that might require their
attention. Anderson’s repeated trips to the medical unit are reported in the log.
According to Fikes’s version of the facts, Anderson fell to the ground while
walking to the bathroom that morning and the inmates began beating on the door to
get someone’s attention. Abrams and Collard then entered the cellblock and,
according to an inmate, Collard “yanked him up by the back of his shirt and said
out loud that [he] had fallen down on purpose[,] threw him back on his bed[,] and
said that the nurses had done all they could and that [he] was just faking.” Buggs
Decl. at 7.
6
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 7 of 25
Around noon, a different detention officer responded to Anderson’s
cellblock after hearing inmates kicking at the door. He saw Anderson lying on the
floor with inmates holding his head; they reported that Anderson had passed out.
Anderson did not respond to questions from the officer; a nurse then came in and
shouted at Anderson to stop faking. She then directed the inmates to lie Anderson
down on the ground in a pool of urine. She asked Collard to get a wheelchair; he
returned slowly with a broken one. The other detention officer called in a medical
emergency, and a different nurse and an officer then performed CPR and used a
defibrillator to attempt to resuscitate Anderson. Anderson was taken to an off-site
emergency room where he was quickly pronounced dead. The cause of death was
determined to be an untreated perforated duodenal ulcer. According to an inmate,
after Anderson died Abrams told the inmates in his cellblock that they “should not
discuss what happened to Mr. Anderson with anyone.” Id. at 8.
The personal representative of Anderson’s estate, his son Phillip Fikes, sued
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The
amended complaint named Tuscaloosa County Sheriff Ron Abernathy, Chief of
Jail Operations Eric Bailey, Abrams, Collard, Tuscaloosa County, and the United
States2 as defendants. Fikes’s civil rights claim alleged deliberate indifference to
1
Whatley Health Services, Inc., the nonprofit that the jail contracted with to provide medical
services, has been “deemed an employee of the Public Health Center by [the Department of
Health and Human Services],” thus implicating the federal government. The government filed
7
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 8 of 25
Anderson’s serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, and his state law claims alleged
negligence, wrongful death, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress.3
At the close of discovery, the court granted summary judgment to
Tuscaloosa County, Abernathy, and Bailey on all claims. The court concluded that
Tuscaloosa did not breach its duty to properly fund medical treatment for those
held in the jail, that there was no causal link between Tuscaloosa policy and
Anderson’s death, and that there was insufficient evidence to establish supervisory
liability on the part of Abernathy or Bailey.
The court denied Abrams and Collard’s motion for summary judgment,
however, on the deliberate indifference claim, concluding that genuine issues of
material fact precluded the entry of summary judgment. The record taken in a light
most favorable to the plaintiff showed that “both Abrams and Collard laughed at
Anderson -- making fun of him and calling him a faker on numerous occasions,”
while “the seriousness of Anderson’s condition would have been obvious even to a
lay person.” See Mandel v. Doe, 888 F.2d 783, 789 (11th Cir. 1989).
an answer admitting liability as to Fikes’s claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, contesting
only the amount of damages.
2
The district court dismissed the state law claims against Tuscaloosa County, Abernathy, Bailey,
and Abrams on various state law grounds, including official immunity under Alabama law. See
Ala. Const. art. I, § 14; Ex parte Davis, 930 So. 2d 497, 500 (Ala. 2005). The only remaining
state law claims are negligence and wrongful death claims against Collard.
8
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 9 of 25
Soon thereafter, Abrams and Collard filed this interlocutory appeal in our
Court claiming that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The district court
stayed further proceedings pending the resolution of the appeal.
II.
We review the denial of summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity de novo, applying the same standards as the district court. Feliciano,
707 F.3d at 1247. We “resolve all issues of material fact in favor of the plaintiff,
and then determine the legal question of whether the defendant is entitled to
qualified immunity under that version of the facts.” Durruthy v. Pastor, 351 F.3d
1080, 1084 (11th Cir. 2003).
Qualified immunity shields “government officials ‘from liability for civil
damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Pearson
v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S.
800, 818 (1982)). The doctrine is designed to permit “government officials to
carry out their discretionary duties without the fear of personal liability or
harassing litigation.” Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188, 1194 (11th Cir. 2002). It
therefore “protect[s] from suit ‘all but the plainly incompetent or one who is
knowingly violating the federal law.’” Id. (quoting Willingham v. Loughnan, 261
F.3d 1178, 1187 (11th Cir. 2001)).
9
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 10 of 25
“In order to receive qualified immunity, the public official ‘must first prove
that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority when the
allegedly wrongful acts occurred.’” Lee, 284 F.3d at 1194 (quoting Courson v.
McMillian, 939 F.2d 1479, 1487 (11th Cir. 1991)). After the defendant makes this
showing, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that qualified immunity is not
appropriate.” Id. The parties do not dispute that Abrams and Collard were acting
within the scope of their discretionary authority. To defeat their claim to qualified
immunity, then, “(1) the relevant facts must set forth a violation of a constitutional
right, and (2) the defendant must have violated a constitutional right that was
clearly established at the time of defendant’s conduct.” Taylor v. Hughes, 920
F.3d 729, 732 (11th Cir. 2019).
A.
Fikes argues that Abrams and Collard violated Anderson’s constitutional
rights by their deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. The Supreme
Court has long held that “deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of
prisoners” violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual
punishments. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). “A core principle of
Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in the area of medical care is that prison officials
with knowledge of the need for care may not, by failing to provide care, delaying
care, or providing grossly inadequate care, cause a prisoner to needlessly suffer the
10
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 11 of 25
pain resulting from his or her illness.” McElligott v. Foley, 182 F.3d 1248, 1257
(11th Cir. 1999). Inadequate medical care in prison implicates the Eighth
Amendment because “[a]n inmate must rely on prison authorities to treat his
medical needs; if the authorities fail to do so, those needs will not be met.” Estelle,
429 U.S. at 103. A failure might result “in pain and suffering which no one
suggests would serve any penological purpose,” or in more severe cases produce
“physical torture or a lingering death” -- thus causing “‘unnecessary and wanton
infliction of pain’ proscribed by the Eighth Amendment.” Id. at 103–04 (citations
omitted) (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 (1976)).
To prevail on this kind of claim, a plaintiff must establish “1) an objectively
serious medical need and 2) [that the] defendant . . . acted with deliberate
indifference to that need.” Pourmoghani-Esfahani v. Gee, 625 F.3d 1313, 1317
(11th Cir. 2010). The second element has objective and subjective components,
requiring that “the defendant must 1) have subjective knowledge of a risk of
serious harm, 2) disregard that risk, and 3) display conduct beyond gross
negligence” to be held liable. Id.Abrams and Collard do not dispute that Anderson had objectively serious
medical needs, and for good reason. The only dispute is whether they were
deliberately indifferent to those needs. Abrams and Collard make three arguments:
first, they claim that the record lacks evidence that they were personally
11
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 12 of 25
deliberately indifferent to his needs; second, that they lacked knowledge of
Anderson’s untreated medical needs; and finally, that because Anderson was
receiving some medical attention, they were entitled to rely on the treatment
decisions of the medical professionals.
For starters, Abrams and Collard argue that Fikes has presented no evidence
that either defendant was deliberately indifferent to any of Anderson’s medical
needs. “[S]ince neither respondeat superior nor vicarious liability exists under §
1983,” Fikes must establish that Abrams and Collard were personally deliberately
indifferent to Anderson’s needs. See Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of
Monroe Cty., 402 F.3d 1092, 1116 (11th Cir. 2005). Individual liability can be
established by proving that “the official was personally involved in the acts that
resulted in the constitutional deprivation,” that “a policy or custom that he
established or utilized results in deliberate indifference to an inmate’s
constitutional rights,” or that “he breach[ed] a duty imposed by state or local law”
and that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury. Zatler v. Wainwright, 802 F.2d
397, 401 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam).
On this record, the argument fails because taking the facts in the record as
true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, as we must at
this stage in the case, there is sufficient evidence that Abrams and Collard were
deliberately indifferent. Several inmates reported that Abrams and Collard in
12
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 13 of 25
particular knew about the inmate’s condition since shortly after Anderson had
arrived at the jail on February 7, 2015, and they knew that nothing was being done
to ensure that he received adequate treatment. One inmate put it this way:
[Anderson] clearly and obviously was in tremendous pain and it was
getting progressively worse from [February 10] until his death.
Nothing was being done for Mr. Anderson to actually help his
condition. Abrams and Collard were well aware of this and were a
big part of the problem.
Brifford Decl. at 2; see also Ligon Decl. at 2 (“They just kept giving him the same
things like enemas, suppositories, and mineral water and it was obvious to the
jailers and the medical staff and certainly to all of us that he was just getting
progressively worse.”); Buggs Decl. at 2–4 (“[Abrams and Collard] seemed to
have no interest whatsoever in getting [Anderson] the medical care he needed for
his condition.”).
These inmates also attested that Abrams and Collard repeatedly made fun of
Anderson’s condition and accused him of malingering. One said that “[t]he jailers
came in and laughed at Mr. Anderson each day and accused him of just faking
being sick and in pain,” and “[s]pecifically, [he] recall[ed] Abrams and Collard
bullying Mr. Anderson by making fun of him and yelling at him to get up and quit
faking.” Brifford Decl. at 2–3; see also id. at 5 (“I remember Abrams and Collard
coming into the cell block and they began yelling at Mr. Anderson, with Collard
putting his face close to Mr. Anderson’s face while he screamed at him. Abrams
13
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 14 of 25
and Collard told Mr. Anderson that they knew he was just faking it and that he
needed to stop faking and just get up.”); Buggs Decl. at 3–4 (“[Abrams and
Collard] and others just laughed at Mr. Anderson, ignored his pain and obviously
serious condition and yelled at him, calling him a faker.”).
What’s more, several inmates said that Collard accused Anderson of faking
his condition even after he collapsed on the morning he died. Inmate Buggs
related that “Abrams and Collard came in and with Mr. Anderson on the floor from
having fallen, Collard yanked him up by the back of his shirt and said out loud that
Mr. Anderson had fallen down on purpose and he threw him back on his bed and
said that the nurses had done all they could and that Mr. Anderson was just
faking.” Buggs Decl. at 6–7.
In response, Abrams and Collard assert that none of this is true. But we
cannot pick and choose what evidence to believe and what to reject on summary
judgment. All we can say is that taking the facts in a light most favorable to the
plaintiff, there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Abrams and
Collard were personally involved in conduct that amounted to deliberate
indifference to Anderson’s acute medical needs.
Abrams and Collard also say they are shielded from liability because they
lacked subjective knowledge of Anderson’s medical condition. The officers are
correct that our cases require that an official have “subjective knowledge of a risk
14
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 15 of 25
of serious harm” before he may be held liable for deliberate indifference. Goebert
v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312, 1327 (11th Cir. 2007). We have said that “[t]o be
deliberately indifferent, a prison official must knowingly or recklessly disregard an
inmate’s basic needs so that knowledge can be inferred.” LaMarca v. Turner, 995
F.2d 1526, 1535 (11th Cir. 1993). In other words, the indifference to an inmate’s
needs must be truly deliberate, not merely negligent or accidental.
A plaintiff, however, is not required to produce direct evidence of a
defendant’s mental state. “Whether a particular defendant has subjective
knowledge of the risk of serious harm is a question of fact ‘subject to
demonstration in the usual ways, including inference from circumstantial
evidence.’” Goebert, 510 F.3d at 1327 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825,
842 (1994)). The Supreme Court has explained that “a factfinder may conclude
that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk was
obvious.” Farmer, 511 U.S. at 842. The record in this case, when drawn in
plaintiff’s favor, supports the determination that it was obvious Anderson’s
condition was worsening throughout his stay, and that he needed emergency
medical attention. That is enough to support an inference that Abrams and Collard
were subjectively aware of a palpable risk of serious harm.
15
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 16 of 25
Detention Officer Jeremiah Van Horn’s declaration provides the strongest
evidence on this point. He described Anderson’s condition on February 14 this
way:
Mr. Anderson looked like he was in terrible shape physically and he
was obviously in great physical pain and distress. He was unable to
speak loudly; but he was moaning and groaning and holding his
stomach. He complained about tremendous pain in his stomach,
which looked to be sticking out abnormally, and he complained of
shortness of breath and said that for days he had been throwing up
everything he was given. Other inmates present emphasized to me
that Mr. Anderson had been in terrible pain from his stomach and had
not eaten or gone to the bathroom in days. He was obviously unable
to move out of bed on his own.
Van Horn Decl. at 3. Van Horn said that he immediately contacted a supervisor
and told him that Anderson “was in very seriously bad shape and needed
immediate medical attention.” Id. After being informed that Anderson had
already seen a nurse, Van Horn responded that “someone had to do something
immediately for Mr. Anderson and that whatever the nurses had been doing for
him was obviously not working as he was in terrible pain, short of breath, and
barely able to move.” Id. at 3. Van Horn added that Anderson “was in obviously
serious, critically bad shape in need of serious medical treatment. Everyone
present could readily see that.” Id.
Notably, Van Horn took it upon himself to repeatedly check on Anderson’s
condition on the night of February 14, which strongly suggests that Anderson’s
16
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 17 of 25
need for immediate medical care was clear and obvious to a non-medically trained
jail official.
Third, Abrams and Collard argue that they did not violate Anderson’s
constitutional rights because they reasonably relied on the assurances by trained
medical staff that he was receiving appropriate treatment. On this record, however,
a reasonable factfinder could determine that they acted with deliberate indifference
by not doing more. For starters, the description of Anderson’s dire medical
condition offered by Van Horn and the inmates, along with the various accounts of
his gradual deterioration, speak against any suggestion that Anderson had received
appropriate treatment from the medical staff. Van Horn put it this way: “whenever
[Anderson] saw the medical staff they just kept giving him the same things despite
him telling them that he could not keep down what they made him take, that
nothing they were doing was working and that he was only getting worse by the
day, not better.” Id.
Moreover, there is a genuine dispute about whether it was reasonable to
accept the medical staff’s conclusion that, on Saturday, February 14, Anderson
could wait to see a doctor until Monday. As Van Horn put it, “[b]y this time on
February 14, 2015, he had been in excruciating pain from his stomach for days, his
stomach was sticking out badly and was hard to the touch, he could not move on
his own, he could not respond to questions, and this was well known to everyone in
17
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 18 of 25
the cell block.” Id. at 5. A reasonable officer, even one who is not a medical
professional, should have recognized that urgent medical care was required. The
conclusion is bolstered by evidence that a nurse said that she had been directed by
her boss not to send Anderson to the hospital, and that “she [was] not going to lose
her job over it.” Id. at 6. Abrams and Collard were not required to overrule any
well-considered treatment decisions of medical professionals; they were required,
however, to notice that Anderson’s condition was very serious and getting worse
and intervene to get him the medical attention he obviously needed.
The facts in the record viewed in a light favorable to the plaintiff show that
(1) Abrams and Collard knew about Anderson’s condition; (2) Anderson’s
condition was visibly serious to a lay person without medical training and getting
substantially worse by the day; (3) Abrams and Collard yelled at him and accused
him of faking it, even up until the day of his death; and (4) Abrams and Collard did
nothing to ensure that he got medical attention, even when another detention
officer thought that emergency medical care was obviously necessary. On this
record, a jury reasonably could conclude that Abrams and Collard failed to take
meaningful action to get Anderson medical treatment.
On the plaintiff’s version of the facts, Anderson’s constitutional rights were
violated by Abrams and Collard’s deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs.
18
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 19 of 25
B.
Even if Anderson’s constitutional rights were violated, however, Abrams
and Collard still would be entitled to qualified immunity unless that right was
clearly established at the time. “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining
whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable
officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v.
Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001). A plaintiff can show the violation of a clearly
established right in three ways. “First, and most commonly, a plaintiff can point to
a case with ‘materially similar’ facts decided by the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeals, or the highest court of the relevant state. Or, a plaintiff can ‘show that a
broader, clearly established principle should control the novel facts in this
situation.’ The final, and often most difficult option is to demonstrate that ‘the
official’s conduct ‘was so far beyond the hazy border between [unlawful] and
acceptable [conduct] that [the official] had to know he was violating the
Constitution even without caselaw on point.’” Sebastian v. Ortiz, 918 F.3d 1301,
1310 (11th Cir. 2019) (citations omitted).
Abrams and Collard argue that it was not clearly established that officials
can be held liable for deliberate indifference when an inmate is receiving medical
treatment. Fikes, however, responds that a long line of cases in this Circuit clearly
19
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 20 of 25
established at the relevant time that Anderson’s rights were being violated. Three
of our cases define the contours of the relevant right.
First, in Carswell v. Bay County, 854 F.2d 454 (11th Cir. 1988), a panel of
this Court held that there was sufficient evidence to find that a jail administrator
and a physician’s assistant were deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s medical
needs even though he received some medical care. Id. at 457. The plaintiff,
Carswell, had repeatedly requested treatment for a rash, constipation, and
significant weight loss, and he received the medication he requested “on some
occasions but other requests were simply ignored.” Id. at 455. He was prescribed
a cream for the rash and diagnosed with tonsillitis and constipation and given the
appropriate medication, though he continued to complain and he continued to lose
weight. Id.After seeing him at a court appearance, his public defender observed that
Carswell “looked like a concentration camp victim” and directly asked the
administrator to get him medical attention, which did not happen. Id. Two days
later, the physician’s assistant examined him again and noted that the inmate had
lost over fifty pounds in eleven weeks in jail. Id. Carswell was taken to the
hospital where he was diagnosed with diabetes. Id. The Court concluded that the
evidence showed that both defendants “had knowledge of Carswell’s need for
medical care,” that they “ignored the warnings,” and that the nonmedical official in
20
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 21 of 25
particular saw “Carswell’s deteriorating condition during rounds at the jail,”
“received a request specifically addressed to him from Carswell for medical
attention,” and “did nothing significant to ensure that Carswell received medical
attention.” Id. at 457. That constituted deliberate indifference, despite the fact that
Carswell had received some medical attention and the relevant official was not a
medical professional.
Later, in Goebert v. Lee County, 510 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2007), another
panel of this Court reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the facility
commander of a jail, Captain Weaver, in a deliberate indifference case. There, the
plaintiff was pregnant and received adequate care for about the first month of
custody. Id. at 1317. Then she began leaking fluid and she was seen by the jail
doctor on two occasions. Id. As her condition worsened, nurses refused to take
her to the doctor, at times refused to accept her written medical request forms, and
eventually refused to give her forms to fill out. Id. at 1318. After about a week of
this, she wrote to Captain Weaver that the medical staff was “unconcerned” with
her condition and that she needed to see an outside obstetrician instead of the jail
doctor. Id. She added that she had lost a pregnancy the previous year when her
water broke early. Id. She saw the jail doctor the following day, who referred her
to an outside doctor, and four days later she finally received administrative
authorization to receive outside medical assistance. Id. at 1319. When she arrived
21
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 22 of 25
at the hospital, it was discovered that she had lost nearly all of the amniotic fluid in
her womb. Id. She lost the pregnancy two days later. Id.This Court held that Weaver, a nonmedical official, was not entitled to
qualified immunity from the inmate’s deliberate indifference claim. As the Court
explained, Weaver had “abundant reason to believe that her medical need was
serious.” Id. at 1327. Most relevant, the Court rejected the argument that Weaver
was not liable because she was under the care of the prison medical staff:
The fact that Goebert had been seen by Dr. Brown does not mean that
a layman could not tell that she had a serious medical need at the time
Captain Weaver received her complaint. For one thing, her complaint
stated that Brown had recommended that she see an obstetrician. For
another, her complaint made it clear that the medical staff who had
seen Goebert had not attended to her needs. A lay person would
recognize the need for an obstetrician’s attention in the circumstances
that Goebert described to Weaver, including Brown’s
recommendation to that effect, and a factfinder could reasonably
conclude from the evidence that Weaver himself did recognize that
need.
Id. at 1327–28 (emphasis added). The Court relied heavily on Carswell, which it
understood had placed Weaver on fair notice that “his actions or inaction violated
Goebert’s constitutional right to timely treatment of her serious medical needs.”
Id. at 1331.
More recently, in Townsend v. Jefferson County, 601 F.3d 1152 (11th Cir.
2010), a panel of this Court held that two deputy county jail officials were entitled
to qualified immunity, distinguishing Carswell and Goebert. In this case, the
22
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 23 of 25
plaintiff was pregnant and began to experience abdominal pain and vaginal
bleeding the morning after her arrest. Id. at 1154. She and other inmates contacted
the deputies, and she saw a nurse that evening, who concluded that her condition
was not an emergency and decided to see her only after administering medication
to other inmates. Id. at 1155–56. An hour or two later, she met with the nurse,
who again told her that it was not an emergency, albeit without conducting any
examination. Id. at 1156. The nurse told one deputy that she did not think the
plaintiff’s condition was an emergency, but she would consult a doctor. Id. The
nurse later asked another nurse to see the plaintiff, but she was never brought to the
medical clinic as a result of an apparent miscommunication. Sometime in the next
two hours, the plaintiff suffered a miscarriage. Id.The Court held that no reasonable jury could conclude that the deputy
county jail officials were deliberately indifferent. The Court reasoned:
[One deputy] had been told by a medical professional that Townsend
was not presenting an emergency, and although [the other] had not
received the same report, [she] knew that a medical professional had
spoken with Townsend and determined that Townsend could wait
several hours for further evaluation. Townsend has not presented
evidence that her situation was so obviously dire that two lay deputies
must have known that a medical professional had grossly misjudged
Townsend’s condition. Townsend also has not offered evidence that
either [of the two deputies] must have known that [Nurse] Langston
had ignored what she knew to be Townsend’s serious medical need so
that she could complete her pill pass on schedule because, for
example, Langston had previously exhibited deliberate indifference in
carrying out [her] responsibilities.
23
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 24 of 25
Id. at 1159 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
As these cases make clear, when an inmate’s medical condition is so
obviously dire that a nonmedical official must know that the inmate requires
additional medical attention, that official can be held liable for deliberate
indifference if he does nothing. Carswell and Goebert clearly established that a
nonmedical official does not fulfill his obligations to an inmate whose condition is
clearly deteriorating merely by obtaining some medical attention for the inmate, if
it is plain and obvious to a person without medical expertise that the care is
inadequate and insufficient.
The record evidence in this case supports Fikes’s claim that it would have
been obvious to any lay person that Anderson was not receiving adequate
treatment for a medical condition that was steadily deteriorating over a few short
days. Again the most powerful piece of evidence comes from jail official Van
Horn, who, like Abrams and Collard, was not a medical professional. Van Horn
said that by February 14 (the night before the inmate died) Anderson “was in very
seriously bad shape and needed immediate medical attention” and that he could tell
“that whatever the nurses had been doing for him obviously was not working.” He
emphasized that Anderson “badly needed” emergency treatment and that “from all
appearances [was] suffering from a very serious, life-threatening medical problem
and getting worse.” He repeated that Anderson “was in obviously serious,
24
Case: 18-12373 Date Filed: 11/08/2019 Page: 25 of 25
critically bad shape in need of serious medical treatment,” and “[e]veryone present
could see that.”
Just like in Goebert, “[a] lay person would recognize the need for [a
physician’s] attention in the circumstances” described by Van Horn and others.
The evidence, taken in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes that
Anderson’s condition was serious, getting worse, and ultimately became critical.
Instead of taking any actions, Abrams and Collard mocked him and accused him of
faking his condition. Goebert and Carswell provided them with fair notice.
On this record, we are satisfied that there is enough evidence, if credited, to
take this case to a jury because Anderson’s constitutional rights were violated and
our case law clearly established that at the time Abrams and Collard acted. We
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
25