William Steele v. Billy Rowles, et al

Filing

William Steele v. Billy Rowles, et al

Doc. 0

Case: 09-40941

Document: 00511193740

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/04/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-40941 S u m m a r y Calendar August 4, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

W I L L I A M CHARLES STEELE, P la in t if f -A p p e lla n t v. B I L L Y ROWLES, Individually and in his official capacity as Sheriff of Jasper C o u n ty ; UNKNOWN JAILERS, Individually and in their official capacity as J a s p e r County Jail Guards; JASPER COUNTY, D e fe n d a n t s -A p p e lle e s

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Eastern District of Texas U S D C No. 1:06-CV-485

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* W illia m Charles Steele (W. Steele), Texas prisoner # 1089890, appeals the d is t r ic t court's summary judgment in favor of Billy Rowles, the Sheriff of Jasper C o u n ty , in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. W. Steele alleged that Rowles violated t h e constitutional rights of his son, Dennis Grady Steele (Steele), who committed s u ic id e while he was a pretrial detainee in Jasper County Jail.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-40941

Document: 00511193740 Page: 2 No. 09-40941

Date Filed: 08/04/2010

C h a lle n g in g the denial of his motion for discovery, W. Steele contends that d is c o v e r y was necessary to develop the evidence so that he could file an affidavit o p p o s in g the defendants' summary judgment motion. He argues that neither the lo c a l rules nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure limit or bar discovery after m a n d a t o r y disclosures are made. T h e district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion for d is c o v e r y . See Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 392 F.3d 812, 817 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 4 ). The defendants provided all the evidence in their possession in their d is c lo s u r e response as required by the district court, including numerous d o c u m e n t s ; incident reports; the witnesses' names, addresses, and phone n u m b e r s ; and the affidavits attached to their summary judgment motion. W. Steele waited almost one year after the defendants provided the disclosure b e fo r e filing his motion for discovery. He has not identified any specific

a d d it io n a l evidence concerning particular circumstances, topics, or witnesses t h a t he needed to obtain through additional discovery. See Beattie v. Madison C o u n ty School District, 254 F.3d 595, 606 (5th Cir. 2001). He has not shown why h e needed additional discovery or how that discovery would have created a g e n u in e issue of material fact. See id. Therefore, he has not shown that the d is t r ic t court abused its discretion in denying his discovery motion. See id. C h a lle n g in g the summary judgment in favor of Rowles, W. Steele contends t h e undisputed evidence established that his son had a serious medical need due t o his suicidal behavior; Rowles was aware of that need; and Rowles failed to p r o v id e or delayed psychiatric treatment, resulting in Steele's suicide. He also a r g u e s that the district court erred in holding that Rowles's conduct had to rise t o the level of egregious intentional conduct to satisfy the deliberate indifference sta n d a rd . T h e district court did not err in holding that Rowles was not personally in v o lv e d in the alleged constitutional violation and, therefore, he could not be h e ld liable based on a vicarious liability theory. See Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 2

Case: 09-40941

Document: 00511193740 Page: 3 No. 09-40941

Date Filed: 08/04/2010

7 3 6 , 742 (5th Cir. 2002). Rowles transported Steele to the jail until Steele could b e admitted to Rusk State Hospital for psychiatric treatment. Rowles instructed t h e jailers and the supervisor on call at that time to place Steele in protective c u s t o d y under a suicide watch and to make sure the night shift employees r e c e iv e d the same instructions. Rowles averred that he did not know that S t e e le 's boots and boot laces were not taken away when he was placed in the jail c e ll. Rowles left the jail at 5:00 p.m. and was not present when Steele committed s u ic id e . Therefore, the record supports the district court's determinations that R o w le s was not personally involved in the alleged constitutional violation and c o u ld not be held liable based on a vicarious liability theory. See id. T h e district court did not err in holding that Rowles was not liable for fa ilin g to train or supervise the employees. See Roberts v. City of Shreveport, 3 9 7 F.3d 287, 292-93 (5th Cir. 2005). The record established that Rowles

s p e c ific a lly advised the jail employees to place Steele in protective custody under a suicide watch. Further, Jasper County Jail had a written suicide prevention p la n in effect on the date of Steele's suicide which provided that an inmate who s h o w s signs of suicidal behavior should not be placed in a single cell unless c o n s t a n t supervision could be maintained; should be stripped of all clothes and s h o e s and furnished with a jail uniform and jail shoes; and should be observed e v e r y 10 to 15 minutes or more often if necessary. "In this inquiry, mere proof t h a t the injury could have been prevented if the officer had received better or a d d it io n a l training cannot, without more, support liability." Id. at 293.

W. Steele has not identified or explained with specificity how Rowles's training p r o g r a m at Jasper County Jail was defective. See Roberts, 397 F.3d at 293. Therefore, the district court did not err in holding that Rowles was not liable for fa ilin g to train or supervise the employees. See id. T h e correct deliberate indifference standard was applied by the district c o u r t. The district court correctly relied on Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5 t h Cir. 2006), in which this court held that to show deliberate indifference, the 3

Case: 09-40941

Document: 00511193740 Page: 4 No. 09-40941

Date Filed: 08/04/2010

p r is o n e r must show that prison officials "`refused to treat him, ignored his c o m p la in t s , intentionally treated him incorrectly, or engaged in any similar c o n d u c t that would clearly evince a wanton disregard for any serious medical n e e d s .'" Id. The record supports the district court's determination that Rowles's c o n d u c t did not rise to the level of deliberate indifference. See id.; see also F a r m e r v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 847 (1994). Therefore, W. Steele has not s h o w n that the district court erred in granting Rowles's summary judgment m o t io n . See Roberts, 397 F.3d at 292-93; Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, I n c ., 576 F.3d 221, 226 (5th Cir. 2009). A F F IR M E D .

4