Matthew Shane Jacobs v. Tommy Ford ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • USCA11 Case: 21-13411        Date Filed: 04/15/2022    Page: 1 of 13
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eleventh Circuit
    ____________________
    No. 21-13411
    Non-Argument Calendar
    ____________________
    MATTHEW SHANE JACOBS,
    DAVID WAYNE JACOBS, SR.,
    Individually,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    versus
    TOMMY FORD,
    Sheriff, Individually and in his capacity as
    Sheriff of the Bay County Sheriff’s Office,
    RICK ANGLIN,
    Major, Individually,
    BRYAN TYLER,
    Chief, Individually,
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411         Date Filed: 04/15/2022     Page: 2 of 13
    2                       Opinion of the Court                  21-13411
    JOEL C. CUNIGAN,
    Officer, Individually,
    LAWRENCE JACK NELSON,
    Officer, Individually,
    NATHANIEL LEOTUS BROWN,
    Deputy, Individually,
    TASHA LAUREN MILLER,
    Individually,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ____________________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Florida
    D.C. Docket No. 5:21-cv-00001-TKW-MJF
    ____________________
    Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    On May 2, 2019, Matthew Shane Jacobs was booked into the
    Bay County, Florida jail on a DUI arrest warrant. Later that day,
    Jacobs attempted suicide in his jail cell, suffering serious injuries as
    a result. Through his father and legal guardian, David Wayne
    Jacobs, Sr., Jacobs sued various employees of the Bay County
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411            Date Filed: 04/15/2022      Page: 3 of 13
    21-13411                  Opinion of the Court                             3
    Sheriff’s Office.1 Principally, in a series of claims brought under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , Jacobs alleged that the defendants violated his
    constitutional rights by acting with deliberate indifference to the
    risk that he might attempt suicide while in jail. Jacobs also asserted
    negligence claims under Florida law.
    The district court dismissed Jacobs’s § 1983 claims for failure
    to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and declined to
    exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-law claims. Jacobs
    now appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 claims. We conclude, as did
    the district court, that Jacobs has not pleaded that any defendant
    had actual knowledge of a strong likelihood that he would attempt
    suicide in jail. Without such knowledge, there can be no deliberate
    indifference. Thus, we affirm.
    I.    Background
    A. Facts
    This case arises from Jacobs’s pretrial detention in Bay
    County, Florida on a DUI charge. Jacobs was detained two
    different times in connection with this offense. On March 7, 2019,
    Officer Thomas of the Panama City Beach Police Department
    arrested Jacobs for driving under the influence and took him to the
    1
    Jacobs’s father is also a plaintiff individually and on his own behalf. For
    simplicity, we will refer to the plaintiffs collectively as “Jacobs.” When
    discussing the facts of this case, our references to “Jacobs” are to Matthew.
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411          Date Filed: 04/15/2022       Page: 4 of 13
    4                        Opinion of the Court                    21-13411
    Bay County jail.2 The jail is controlled and operated by the Bay
    County Sheriff’s Office. At the jail, Officer Thomas filled out an
    inmate welfare questionnaire, on which she indicated that Jacobs
    displayed suicidal tendencies, and specifically that Jacobs told her
    “he wanted to run out in traffic and kill himself.” Jacobs was
    released from pretrial detention the next day.
    After Jacobs failed to appear for a hearing on his DUI charge,
    an arrest warrant was issued on April 26, 2019. On May 2, 2019, a
    visibly intoxicated Jacobs turned himself in to the Bay County jail
    on the warrant. While at the jail on May 2, Jacobs had contact with
    four of the defendants.
    First, Defendant Cunigan, an officer of the Bay County
    Sheriff’s Office, took Jacobs into custody and placed him under
    arrest. While Officer Cunigan was walking Jacobs over to the jail,
    Jacobs told the officer that he “had medical conditions” and “did
    not like being locked up.” Officer Cunigan then completed an
    inmate welfare questionnaire on which he checked “no” in
    response to prompts asking if he was aware of any medical
    concerns and if Jacobs had displayed or stated any suicidal
    tendencies.
    Next, Defendant Miller, an emergency medical technician
    employed by the Bay County Sheriff’s Office, performed a medical
    2
    The following facts from Jacobs’s second amended complaint are taken as
    true for the purposes of this appeal. See McGroarty v. Swearingen, 
    977 F.3d 1302
    , 1306 (11th Cir. 2020).
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411           Date Filed: 04/15/2022       Page: 5 of 13
    21-13411                  Opinion of the Court                             5
    assessment to determine whether Jacobs could be safely accepted
    into the jail. During the medical assessment, EMT Miller noticed
    that Jacobs was intoxicated and recorded Jacobs’s blood alcohol
    content as 0.27. Jacobs informed EMT Miller that he suffered from
    epilepsy and bipolar disorder, was manic, and was not in
    compliance with his medications. Concluding her medical
    assessment, EMT Miller determined that Jacobs could be accepted
    into the jail.
    Defendant Nelson, another officer of the Bay County
    Sheriff’s Office, then completed Jacobs’s booking into the jail.
    Officer Nelson placed Jacobs, who was still visibly intoxicated, into
    a solitary cell that had a corded telephone mounted on the wall.
    Lastly, Defendant Brown, a deputy of the Bay County
    Sheriff’s Office, was tasked with performing security checks in the
    area of the jail where Jacobs was located on the afternoon of May
    2. Per Bay County Sheriff’s Office policy, security checks are
    supposed to occur in male booking areas at least every 30 minutes.
    However, Deputy Brown failed to timely perform a security check
    at 5:00 PM, which was when Jacobs attempted suicide by hanging
    using a piece of his shirt and the telephone cord in his cell.3 Deputy
    Brown noticed that something was wrong in Jacobs’s cell around
    5:15 PM and called for emergency assistance. Jacobs was rushed to
    3
    After the suicide attempt, the Bay County Sheriff’s Office wrote Deputy
    Brown up for failing to timely perform the 5:00 PM security check, and Deputy
    Brown resigned shortly thereafter.
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411              Date Filed: 04/15/2022          Page: 6 of 13
    6                           Opinion of the Court                        21-13411
    a hospital, where he was diagnosed with acute respiratory failure
    and asphyxiation and remained in a coma for several weeks. As a
    result of his suicide attempt, Jacobs suffered permanent physical
    and cognitive injuries.
    B. Procedural History
    In January 2021, Jacobs, through his father and legal
    guardian, filed a complaint in the district court asserting claims
    against various Bay County government entities and individuals.
    In April 2021, Jacobs amended his complaint. In July 2021, the
    district court dismissed Jacobs’s first amended complaint without
    prejudice as a shotgun pleading and for failure to state a claim upon
    which relief could be granted.
    Later in July 2021, Jacobs filed his second amended
    complaint, which is the operative complaint in this appeal. In his
    second amended complaint, Jacobs asserted claims against: (1)
    Tommy Ford, Bay County’s sheriff, in his official capacity;4 (2)
    three supervisory officials at the Bay County Sheriff’s Office—
    Sheriff Ford, Major Rick Anglin, and Chief Bryan Tyler—in their
    individual capacities; and (3) the four Bay County Sheriff’s Office
    4
    Jacobs’s § 1983 suit against Sheriff Ford in his official capacity is “simply
    another way of pleading an action against [the] entity of which [the] officer is
    an agent.” Busby v. City of Orlando, 
    931 F.2d 764
    , 776 (11th Cir. 1991)
    (quotation omitted). Thus, we construe Jacobs’s official-capacity suit as
    against the Bay County Sheriff’s Office. See 
    id.
     (“[Section 1983] suits against
    municipal officers are therefore, in actuality, suits directly against the city that
    the officer represents.”).
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411               Date Filed: 04/15/2022         Page: 7 of 13
    21-13411                     Opinion of the Court                             7
    employees who had contact with Jacobs on May 2, 2019—Officer
    Cunigan, Officer Nelson, Deputy Brown, and EMT Miller—in
    their individual capacities.
    In addition to several state-law negligence claims, Jacobs’s
    second amended complaint asserted three distinct § 1983 claims
    based on the defendants’ alleged deliberate indifference to the risk
    that Jacobs might commit suicide in jail. First, in his primary § 1983
    claim, Jacobs alleged that the four Bay County Sheriff’s Office
    employees who had contact with him on May 2, 2019, violated his
    constitutional rights by deliberately disregarding the possibility
    that he would attempt suicide in his cell. Second, in a Monell
    claim5 against the Bay County Sheriff’s Office, Jacobs alleged that
    the sheriff’s office had a policy or custom of exhibiting deliberate
    indifference to the suicide risks of detainees and inmates. Third, in
    a supervisory liability claim, Jacobs alleged that the Bay County
    Sheriff’s Office, as well as Sheriff Ford, Major Anglin, and Chief
    Tyler individually, were deliberately indifferent to the suicide risks
    of inmates and detainees in their hiring, training, retention, and
    supervision of Bay County Sheriff’s Office employees. The
    defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint
    for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
    The district court granted the defendants’ motions. With
    respect to Jacobs’s primary § 1983 claim against the four employees
    who had contact with him on May 2, 2019, the district court held
    5
    Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 
    436 U.S. 658
     (1978).
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411         Date Filed: 04/15/2022      Page: 8 of 13
    8                       Opinion of the Court                   21-13411
    that Jacobs had not pleaded a plausible deliberate indifference claim
    because he had failed to plead facts indicating that any of the
    employees had actual knowledge that Jacobs was suicidal when he
    was booked into the jail on that day. The district court then held
    that Jacobs’s Monell and supervisory liability claims failed due to
    the lack of an “underlying . . . violation” of Jacobs’s constitutional
    rights. Having dismissed each of Jacobs’s federal claims, the district
    court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state-
    law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The
    district court entered judgment and Jacobs timely appealed. On
    appeal, Jacobs challenges only the dismissal of his § 1983 claims,
    asserting no challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his state-
    law claims.
    II. Standard of Review
    We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to
    dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
    to state a claim, “accepting the allegations in the complaint as true
    and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
    Hill v. White, 
    321 F.3d 1334
    , 1335 (11th Cir. 2003). To survive
    dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a plaintiff’s obligation to
    provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than
    labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
    of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 
    550 U.S. 544
    , 555 (2007) (quotations omitted and alteration adopted).
    “[A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
    true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411         Date Filed: 04/15/2022      Page: 9 of 13
    21-13411                Opinion of the Court                           9
    v. Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (quotation omitted). And to state
    a plausible claim for relief, a plaintiff must “plead[] factual content
    that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
    defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 
    Id.
    III. Discussion
    “The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
    guarantees pretrial detainees the right to basic necessities that the
    Eighth Amendment guarantees convicted persons.” Gish v.
    Thomas, 
    516 F.3d 952
    , 954 (11th Cir. 2008). Among other things,
    pretrial detainees have “a right to be protected from self-inflicted
    injuries, including suicide.” Belcher v. City of Foley, 
    30 F.3d 1390
    ,
    1396 (11th Cir. 1994). “In a prisoner suicide case, to prevail under
    section 1983 for violation of substantive rights . . . the plaintiff must
    show that the jail official displayed deliberate indifference to the
    prisoner’s taking of his own life.” Edwards v. Gilbert, 
    867 F.2d 1271
    , 1274–75 (11th Cir. 1989) (quotation omitted).
    “To establish a defendant’s deliberate indifference, the
    plaintiff has to show that the defendant had (1) subjective
    knowledge of a risk of serious harm; and (2) disregarded that risk;
    (3) by conduct that is more than mere negligence.” Snow ex rel.
    Snow v. City of Citronelle, 
    420 F.3d 1262
    , 1268 (11th Cir. 2005)
    (quotation omitted and alterations adopted). “[D]eliberate
    indifference requires that the defendant deliberately disregard a
    strong likelihood rather than a mere possibility that the self-
    infliction of harm will occur.” Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v.
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411        Date Filed: 04/15/2022     Page: 10 of 13
    10                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13411
    Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., 
    402 F.3d 1092
    , 1115 (11th Cir. 2005)
    (quotation omitted) (emphasis in original).          “[T]he mere
    opportunity for suicide, without more, is clearly insufficient to
    impose liability on those charged with the care of prisoners.” 
    Id.
    (quotation omitted). “Absent knowledge of a detainee’s suicidal
    tendencies . . . failure to prevent suicide has never been held to
    constitute deliberate indifference.” Popham v. City of Talladega,
    
    908 F.2d 1561
    , 1564 (11th Cir. 1990).
    Jacobs challenges the district court’s dismissal of his three
    § 1983 claims. However, the district court properly dismissed each
    of those claims—the primary deliberate indifference claim against
    the four employees who had contact with Jacobs at the Bay County
    jail; the Monell claim against the sheriff’s office; and the
    supervisory liability claim against the sheriff’s office and several of
    its higher-up officials—for the same reason: Jacobs did not plead
    facts giving rise to a reasonable inference that any defendant had
    actual knowledge that Jacobs was suicidal on the day he tried to kill
    himself in his jail cell. See Franklin v. Curry, 
    738 F.3d 1246
    , 1250
    (11th Cir. 2013) (to prevail on a deliberate indifference claim, the
    plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant “actually knew of the
    serious risk” (emphasis in original)); Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. at 678
     (to
    survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must “plead[] factual
    content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
    the defendant is liable”).
    With respect to Jacobs’s primary § 1983 claim against the
    four sheriff’s office employees who came into contact with him on
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411       Date Filed: 04/15/2022     Page: 11 of 13
    21-13411               Opinion of the Court                        11
    May 2, 2019, we begin by noting what Jacobs has not pleaded: that
    he told anyone at the jail that day that he was suicidal. Instead,
    Jacobs argues that a court could reasonably infer that Officer
    Cunigan, Officer Nelson, Deputy Brown, and EMT Miller knew he
    was suicidal on May 2 based on two other facts alleged in his
    complaint: (1) almost two months prior, on March 7, 2019, he told
    a different officer he was suicidal when he was initially arrested and
    brought to the Bay County jail, and the officer recorded that
    statement on an inmate welfare questionnaire; and (2) he was
    visibly intoxicated and told some of the defendants that he was
    anxious, mentally ill, and off his medications when he returned to
    the jail on May 2. None of these facts, taken separately or together,
    gives rise to a reasonable inference that any defendant knew Jacobs
    was suicidal on May 2.
    Jacobs’s argument that a court could reasonably infer the
    defendants’ knowledge that he was suicidal on May 2 from the fact
    that a different officer recorded his statement during his separate
    March 7 jail visit that “he wanted to run out in traffic and kill
    himself” lacks merit. Jacobs’s second amended complaint is devoid
    of factual specifics indicating that any of the four defendants who
    came into contact with him on May 2 ever saw or read the inmate
    questionnaire Officer Thomas filled out during Jacobs’s separate
    jail visit almost two months prior. In a series of boilerplate
    assertions, Jacobs alleged in his second amended complaint that,
    “based on the March 7, 2019 Inmate Welfare Questionnaire,”
    Officer Cunigan, Officer Nelson, Deputy Brown, and EMT Miller
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411      Date Filed: 04/15/2022    Page: 12 of 13
    12                    Opinion of the Court                21-13411
    each “knew and/or but for the reckless disregard and deliberate
    indifference to his civil rights would have known that [Jacobs] was
    suicidal and that there was a strong likelihood that [Jacobs] would
    attempt suicide.” These allegations are “naked assertions devoid
    of further factual enhancement” that cannot save Jacobs’s claims
    from dismissal. See Iqbal, 
    556 U.S. at 678
     (quotation omitted and
    alteration adopted); see also Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 
    693 F.3d 1333
    , 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (“[I]f allegations are indeed more
    conclusory than factual, then the court does not have to assume
    their truth.”). Rote allegations aside, Jacobs’s second amended
    complaint pleaded no facts indicating that Officer Cunigan, Officer
    Nelson, Deputy Brown, or EMT Miller even knew about the
    March 7 questionnaire or knew what it said when they came into
    contact with Jacobs on May 2.
    Jacobs’s argument that a court could reasonably infer the
    defendants’ knowledge that he was suicidal from the fact that he
    was visibly intoxicated and told some of the defendants that he was
    anxious, mentally ill, and off his medications on May 2 lacks merit
    as well. None of those factors would give a prison official
    knowledge of a strong likelihood that a detainee would try and end
    his own life. See Popham, 
    908 F.2d at
    1563–64 (concluding that
    prison officials did not have knowledge of a detainee’s suicidal
    tendencies where the detainee was arrested for public intoxication
    and was “emotional, depressed, and angry at the time of his
    arrest”). At bottom, Jacobs’s second amended complaint simply
    lacks facts allowing for a reasonable inference that any of the
    USCA11 Case: 21-13411       Date Filed: 04/15/2022     Page: 13 of 13
    21-13411               Opinion of the Court                        13
    defendants who had contact with Jacobs on May 2 had any idea he
    might try and kill himself that day. Thus, Jacobs failed to plead a
    plausible claim of deliberate indifference. See Snow, 
    420 F.3d at 1268
     (explaining that “subjective knowledge of a risk of serious
    harm” is required for a deliberate indifference claim).
    Because Jacobs did not plead a plausible deliberate
    indifference claim against the sheriff’s office employees who came
    into contact with him on May 2, 2019, his Monell and supervisory
    liability claims fail as well. “There can be no policy-based liability
    or supervisory liability when there is no underlying constitutional
    violation.” Knight ex rel. Kerr v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 
    856 F.3d 795
    ,
    821 (11th Cir. 2017); see also Gish, 
    516 F.3d at 955
     (holding that
    county and sheriff could not be liable for Monell and supervisory
    liability claims against them arising from a detainee’s suicide where
    the deputy transporting the detainee was not “deliberately
    indifferent to a known risk” the detainee would commit suicide
    and, therefore, “there was no underlying constitutional violation
    by [the deputy]”).
    The district court properly dismissed Jacobs’s § 1983 claims
    for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
    AFFIRMED.