00-2933 Sanville v. McCaughtry, et al.

Listen to this article

“Plaintiff claims that, once Matt covered his cell openings with toilet paper, the guards were aware of the substantial risk that Matt would commit suicide. She asserts that the guards already knew: 1) that Matt had written a last will and testament contemplating his imminent death and telling his mother how to carry on his affairs after he died; 2) that Matt told certain guards that he planned to commit suicide; 3) that he had attempted suicide in the past; 4) that he had a long history of mental illness; 5) that he was not eating and was dangerously thin; and 6) that his mother had called the prison to alert them that he was paranoid, suicidal, and in trouble.

“It seems quite possible that, under the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, the guards could have been aware of the risk that Matt would commit suicide. Particularly if Matt told them that he was suicidal, that alone should have been enough to ‘impute awareness of a substantial risk of suicide.’ Turbin, 226 F.3d at 529. It is true that ‘strange behavior alone, without indications that that behavior has a substantial likelihood of taking a suicidal turn, is not sufficient to impute subjective knowledge of a high suicide risk to jail personnel.’ Id. at 530. Thus, if the inmate was a normally functioning individual with no history of mental illness or suicide attempts, who had not recently lost nearly one-third of his body weight or written letters to his mother contemplating his death, then maybe papering up his cell would not be enough to put the guards on notice that something was wrong. Matt was not a normally functioning individual, however, and it would not be inconsistent with the alleged facts to find that he did ‘put jail officials on notice that there was a significant likelihood that he would attempt to harm himself.’ Id. The Eighth Amendment does not allow officials to turn a blind eye to the activities of an inmate, particularly one who is suicidal. We thus find that plaintiff’s complaint should not have been dismissed because she has alleged sufficient facts that, if proven, would entitle her to relief against the WCI guards.”

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Randa, J., Kanne, J.