Civil Rights — due process — deliberate indifference

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Civil Rights — due process — deliberate indifference

Where a pre-trial detainee was known to suffer from schizophrenia, and was incompetent to stand trial, summary judgment was improperly granted to the prison on his estate’s claim that they were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs when he drank so much water that he died.

“We conclude, contrary to the district court, that whether jail officials were deliberately indifferent to Rice’s conditions of confinement presents a material dispute of fact that the factfinder must resolve at trial. That Rice himself created the unsanitary conditions of which his Estate complains certainly is a fact relevant to this claim, as our decision in Isby makes clear. 100 F.3d at 505-06. But given Rice’s mental condition, it by no means forecloses the claim, as the district court appears to have assumed. As we noted in Freeman v. Berge, 441 F.3d 543, 546 (7th Cir. 2006), and Hall v. Ryan, 957 F.2d 402, 406 (7th Cir. 1992), prison officials have an obligation to intervene when they know a prisoner suffers from self-destructive tendencies. There is evidence that Rice may have been malingering, and it is possible that a factfinder might conclude that Rice’s failure of self-care was knowing, voluntary, and deliberate rather than the product of his mental illness. But there is also a wealth of evidence in the record that would support a contrary finding that Rice truly became incapable of caring for himself as a result of his schizophrenia and that jail officials were well aware of this. In light of that evidence, a factfinder reasonably could conclude that Rice was not responsible for the conditions of his cell and his person, and that prison officials, who were aware of these conditions and of Rice’s illness, were responsible for them in the sense that they did not make more conscientious efforts to bathe Rice and to clean his cell. No doubt Rice’s behavior placed the jail in a difficult position; and a factfinder might conclude that even if jail officials could have done more, they were not deliberately indifferent to the cleanliness of Rice’s person and cell. For example, the record does confirm that jail staff did shower Rice and clean out his cell on multiple occasions. However, in view of evidence suggesting that uneaten food was allowed to accumulate in Rice’s cell, that he went for long periods without being showered, and that the stench of his cell and his person were overwhelming, this claim cannot be resolved on summary judgment.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

09-2804 & 10-2389 Estate of Rice v. Correctional Medical Services

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Miller, Lozano, JJ., Rovner, J.