Civil Rights – Deliberate indifference

Listen to this article

Civil Rights – Deliberate indifference

Where a prisoner’s risk of suicide was obvious to the defendant, it was error to grant summary judgment to the defendant.

“The defendants could have placed Belbachir in a mental hospital or at least on suicide watch. These were simple and obvious precautions against a risk of suicide. A severely depressed
person who has hallucinations, acute anxiety, and feelings of hopelessness and helplessness and who cries continually, talks incessantly of death, and is diagnosed as suicidal, is in obvious danger, and if the danger (known to a defendant) can be averted at slight cost, the failure to try to avert it is willful. Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d 616, 620–21 (7th Cir. 2003); Sanville v. McCaughtry, 266 F.3d 724, 737–38 (7th Cir. 2001); Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1244–45 (9th Cir. 2010); Coleman v. Parkman, 349 F.3d 534, 539 (8th Cir. 2003); Comstock v. McCrary, 273 F.3d 693,704, 709–10 (6th Cir. 2001).”

“The district judge reviewed the facts in detail but regarding the medical staff concluded simply that none of them ‘subjectively knew [that Belbachir] was at substantial risk of committing suicide.’ But as the judge didn’t explain what he meant by ‘substantial’ in this context we can give no weight to his conclusion. Nor are the facts so one-sided as to justify taking from a jury the issue of defendant Frederick’s refusal to act in the face of a significant risk of suicide known to her.”

Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part.

13-1002 Belbachir v. County of McHenry

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Reinhard, J., Posner, J.

Full Text