Allen et al v. City of Grovetown et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 59 Motion for Leave to File. This case will proceed to trial. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/03/2013. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTADIVISION
*

GLORIA J. ALLEN, as next friend
of J.D.L.,
JR., M.A.M,, and
Z.G.L., minor chifdren of the
decedent, Jeremy D. Love, Sr.,
and GLORIA J. ALLEN, as
of the EsLate of
Administrarrix
Jeremy D. Love, Sr, ,
Plalntiff,

cv Lt0-022

v.
MIKE FREEMAN, SCTqCANI,
. i- r i . . r r . . ^ r ' ry, , a r-r n a i - h i s o f f i c i a l
- q r
^rF.r ^er wirh rhe
r-dt,d u-L |-y

Grovetown Pofice Department' and
H
CHESTER OPKINS, Officer '
^ - r fjr-r h i s o f f i c i a L
y
drru
udPd

-

L -L Ly

^tF: -er

with

the

Groverown PoLice Departmenc'
Defendants.

ORDER

Present.Iy
for
this

pendlng

summary .;udgmenc.
motlon

is

hereby

before

the

(Doc. no.

is

Court
36. )

Defendants'

motion

Upon due consideration,

DENIED.

I . BJACKGROT'IID

A.

FactuaL

This
("Love")

Background

case arises
while

Detent.ion Center

Love

from
was

the

suicide

detained

(the "Jai1")

.

at

nf

t- ha

Ta ram\7

r-i

f \z

D. Love,
of

Sr. ,

Grovet own

7. Lowe's
On Aprll

r: r^\rA'|-

^Lrh

the

because

Love

face. "

(Id.

Brown

Love

G]oria

r:a^rdi

caIIed

and JaiT

2048,

28,

Plaintiff

moLher,

Attest

and

42. )

an

their
10,

argument
shared

41 .)

of

Plbl ic

and

"kept
4:45

aL

At

her

Harden

Love for

arrived

in

AlLen

(*CDPS")

getting
p.m.,

his

residence

SaIety

at

in

Iher]

GDPS Officer

the

scene
(Id.

conducL.

disorderly

with

Pfalntiff

approxjmaLely

cussing

arrested

at

Dep. at

GDPS Sergeant

subsequently

into

Deparrment

CroveLown
was

qot

Allen,

(Alfen

r

at

J.

Intake

at

and
42-

44; Doc. no. 42 aL 9, 12.)
ar^1,n/l

in

c . 1 nw
-

qF-'raan

Officer.'

an.l
1

,
(^D o c .

"Iooked

srrung

noticed

that

As

with

the

na-r

r .qrJ: e
w

DefendanL Michaef
r-l^asra-

no.

42

aL

20,

Iove

was "extremely

l-}'^

--i

-h..]

r

nr

Freeman ("Freeman"),

Hcnl,i

36,
" - v ^ -l "
'E y

(Hopkins

out./'

^

ihl-

h -ru^urY r/ r-Lf h l r
v

f L ^

rlrserrzed'

:1- 6O-61

I^17a

nF€trn.lFn'

Hnn i i
r r u P ^L , , J n q

nan

m

v.rL,.

of

Lhe custody

urLYLq'Lut

n

v.

Dep,

/"H.rnkins"\

ns

40. )

-atcr_l

a v f_ r i - q L L u
u r

at

a -_ c l
u -q

15-16.)

agiLated

a GDPS
e

When Love

r^an

GDPS

came in,

r rPnr s-a - "
u
r

and

Freeman also
(Freeman

and upset."

\
of

T,ove'<

assisrance

oI

ini^ka

Hnnkin<

Freeman.

filled

(Doc. no.

OuL

an

inLake

42 aL ]4-15;

form

Hopkins

r Hop<irs joined cDPS on March 26, .008, approxjmately one monLh be.ore
(Doc. no, 43 at 4. )
He was initially
assigned to drspatch
Love's suicide.
and was reass'gned Lo Lhe Ja-I a fe., days before Lo,,o's su jc ide.
{ F- € e - r a n
Dep. at B-9; Hopkins Dep. at B-10. )
Freeman had been
liith
GDPS since
1995 and !.ras responsible
for
(Doc. no, 43 aL 46; Hopkins Dep. aL 12,
supervising
and training
llopkirrs.
Love had been housed in the Jaif
23-24; Freeman Dep. at B-9, 20,)
a few
tires'n
Ehe pasL, buL Froeman \.{as Jnaware ol any pasc suic'dal
behavio"L by
(a-.len Dep. aL J5; Freeman Dep. ar j2; Doc,
Love ouring Lnose prio-r s-inLS.
no. 42 at 3E.)

Freeman Dep. at

Dep. at

18,

Honki rs

i n r l , r - a 1e d

of

2A;

,-)
alcohof.-

42

no.

at

1-4.)

Under

Hopkins

f .akir"o mcdiaal ion

To \ / t r w a e . - r - r F ^ l l v

On the

r'o be

l.^'/A :nnaa-ad

f h^f

(Doc.

13.)

10,

intake
the

afso

form,

inf lUenCe

indicated

that

nsvr-hr atri.:

.lisorder.3

form

"Does

Fnr :

(rd. )
The
inmate's
14.)

To address

to

at

After

at

fooked

aa
r
- q -, ^ 6 I! .q a - -

rr-!"

J

Iacr
L

intake

that's

"no,

u:..l6h

the

the

L?h^

m:.]a

rha

:rraer

42 at

40.)

ini t.ially
-

question

ninth

rhus,

(Hopkins Dep.

ri sk.

checked

'tYes, "

Love

ninth

guestion

tnice,

and

meant. "

Love had beer drinking

rhat

want

Hopkins

After

I

don't

H o p ki n s

remarks,

to

read

what

not

"f

see afso Doc. no.

Love was a sujcide

form,

said:

(Hopkins

Dep.

at

ndy l^ave been relayed
/H^hkinc

nah

A

lR

I

20.)

Lo HoF.kirs
Daeni_^

-L-

Hopkins indicated
on the intake form that
Love "looked strung out,"
oI oLher dtuqs or have a.y
noL appear Lo be Lnder Ehe in'luence

fact that
Love oid
ry,

the

(See

"
or mumb-Led somethi ng abouc a

two

40.)

42 at

intentlons.

or

Love then

said

adjacent

42 at

(Doc. no.

the

Freeman apparenLly

or

thouqhts

Hopkins,

these

he believed
Doc. no.

'The
h
! y\ /

made

t'Yes" box

the

at

said,

to

asks:

suicide?"

Hopkins

he had any suicidal

Love

19-21;

of

(Hopkins Dep. at 2li

pine box."a

jndicacing

intake

risk

anymore" and also

be here

checked

the

quesLjon,

Lhis

According

36.)

on

suqgest the

behavior

asked Love if
id.

question

ninth

^F:l-^h^
v

^ rr
!

A !. u i9
r t ^

wil\d'^-,:l

/qa
\ J r ra

n^
t L -^.

-.

-

A)

at

1l:

H -^ .
- - ^ 1 L .i -n-_ - )
-

^'
usP.

at

15-16. )
'oIn. indicaLed LnaL Love was
r The "Arrest/Booking
PoparL," a oilferenr
"under docLor's care and/or takinq any medicacions" and list.ed "High stress
(Doc. no. 42 aL 9, )
The arrest
and
Disorder" on the corresponding Iine.

t^^Lih^

h^f

been
have
deposition,
disorder,"

cinnad

hV

\\ra-ai

rha

rrihd

^ffi.i:l

"

t id

I

(See
Freoman.
Free-an
Dep,
aL
13. )
oy
f'
led
ouE
-emerber
Love's
ary!hing
abouL
Freenar
di d
1oE
"h'g.
-7--8),
(See Freena.l Dep, aL 13, 15,

o The Lerm "pine

box" qenera--1, deroLes a collin.

3

(Eiser

h,,l-

m:r,

AL nis
stress

Dep. aL 46,)

1- en
h

Honk. rs

j f

Love

At
his

not

initials

I r r ' l r !r

to

no

-r-

lL-v. )

rru!L

Ar-r-nrdi
. -v rr or iv- . ,
Y
r

yourself?"
\

the

Hopk-ins for

-

A<

then

"if

.

night

you do,
r^r.c
a

.sf

I'.Il-

nnr

nni

about

Freeman tofd
r.6

you

l- ^

to

hrlrt

"No."

rar

(Doc. no.

.a^^r-r

\/OU' fe
lFreeman

wanf

r'O

to

be

hurt
now."

himeclf

:nd

(IQ.

at

12;

placed

formally

15.l

was completed

Meek to

36. )

f ?,/

want

hA

pane

42

EMS right

Love was not
42 at

a

alonf F

call

n.1

r-h.t

\//1rr qerui nn

\/OrtrSFl

'tdo

N4eek

shift.

:-

-

again,

paperwork

f ir:e.

,-

r1-

T

'.'rn

( S e e D o c. n o .

inrake

F

f .

As a result,

36. )

cl^.

c:i.l

no

\\a-a

form from "Yes"

intake

the

r.-a.rl'

ha

Doc.

T,oVF

r/.1r. \^rrnf

.r

l-h.ef

^f

41.)

\\ lT.nrral

ori

afso

askFri

raqnnrdad

r;npq

r\ m

I/rr".,

Dep. at

f

racn^nr"{or"i

6

After

racn,rnl-

Freeman asked

i . { a t c h ."

on sulcide

6.nn

he

" put

(Id. )

see

-

(Id.)

t'Yes,

check nexc to

LL;

T.\,6

42 at

the

aSked

be here."

at

\ / . r | ] r S U '],
Je

Hopkins changed the
Doc. no.

want to

"mumbfed somethinq

and a-Lso said,

T ^\7a

out

F'r66m^11

Dep.

(Id. )

here."

don't

and

and Love said,

and

),vv'

\

11

whar he meant,

just

time

there"

be

F-rccm:n

htt-l-

. j

nva ^
, v.

not
I

)/

mole

6pg

and checked *No.-5
!u!

(Freeman

box. "

/Tri

c i rm i' f
rL

r

want

r - r . r F s fi o n

Hopkins crossed

by it,

enmarrh:t

I he

that's

what I meant;

Lhar poinL,

didn't

raad

T,ova

was sure

he

'tthat's

I er

at

ia',azl

42 at

20,

approximate.Iy
Er-ah-r

A0;

and

Hopkins

check on Love because Love
' L-

irrrLa

for-1

.-f

lF.i<

u.nkinS,S

testimony,
ercepj: thai- Lhe check mark nexl to "|lo" has been scribbled
out.
(!99 ooc. no. 42 at 14.)
' l f L o v e r a o b e e n p l a c e d o r s u i c i d e ' ^ J a L c n ,h e w o u . I d h a v e b e e n p a c e d i n
a cell away l-om ofher innafes; chec<ed on e\'ery Len o- 'i'Eeen m-nLles,' h's
professionals
mattress
and sheets would have been taken a',ray; and medical
(Freeman Dep. at IA, 16, 53, 64;
!.rou1d ha./e been contacted to evafuate him.
see also Doc. no, 40 aL 32, 34, & Ex. I aL 2It 44.)

'textremely

was

(Freenan

DFn.

al

60-61.

The ,Jai7

2.

four

contains
no.

other

three

43 at

2;

jn

CeIl

39 at

5;

was six

shower door

four

r - a n . e l ^ r , , ' I t . h c i - r - r nn f
The shower door
u e r 9i, nvh a d
wra . v

1l\

42 at

south wall,

inches

there

The frame of

30.)

heighL

in

and

(Id.

frame.

ui:s

(Doc. no.

42 aL

have since

f i\/e

been removed.

(See Doc. no,

and its

39 at

Love,
'r

'rr:hcs

Fi.rhl-

The shower door

66.)

about
bar

aL 25,29.)

was sL-rong enough Lo hold
feet.

was

(See Doc. nos.

An aluminum support

29.)

shower door

(See Doc.

waff.

east

Hopkins Dep. at
Len

The ceff

bar

:nd

63,

the

a wooden door'

feeL,

the

support

nnrrndc

cell.

25-32.)

42 al

with

(Doc. no.

wide.

feet

there. "

holding

men's

Along the

28-29;

25,

the

3.)

39 at

Doc. no.

42 at

A,

(Doc. no.

and a shower stall

the

Block

bunk beds alonq

of

a toi.Let
3,

back

anything

)

inmates.

sets

do

"could

Ce77

Love was placed
with

and

agicated"

who

hc'r^th-.

support

bar

Freeman Dep. at

3;

34-37. )
room is

The GDPS dispatch
waff

three

windows on the

to

observe

43-46,
had

Ceff

(Freeman Dep, at

norch waI1,

which could

including

Doc. nos.

39 at

covered

up

other

on the

A,

ce1l,

the

49-50;

been

years.

of

Block

north

focated

wiLh

(Freeman Dep. at

the
1;

cardboard

45-46,

43.)

2.)
or

of

the

There are

p e r n L - L Ld i s p a L c h e r s
(see id.

shower staff.

43 at

side

H ^L'a\ra

plywood

7

tha

for

49-50; Robinson Dep. at

at

uri nriarrc

over
i4.)

ren

3.

Ewents

During

the

42 aL 20-2L.)
Jaif

the

Dep. at

nffi

.

narL

c n n l z\ a
' !

rhc

(Freeman

qr-nc

nni

Dep.

rt

(Id.

a

(Doc. no.

aL

sheet

36,

41. )

43;

(Id.

at

21;

Er e eman

and fed

the

1nmales

-

judge,

-

*-^.atiOn

4

|

T,6\/c

Doc. no.

PLVD

i n d i r z i/d-ruru-a'fr ' '

-rru-

42 at

who informed

hear.ing because of

26-21 .)

F-r^arrAn

!y

22.)

t

At

him

Lhac

a probation

rcl

arzcrl

this

at 21 .)
l-n

I rnr-h

Love was by

bed

42 at

nr

nri

A and observed that
tied

a

a 48-hour

to Love.

information

had

at

Freeman arrived

rv

inr-lrrdinn

(Id.

viofations.

receive

du

/

inmatcq

a.m.

about

(See Doc. no.

2008,

Meek.

7:30

at

inmates

unusual.7

Apri). 29,

nc P .
^*
u

\ ^ r il - h

Love would not

or

day,

Freeman spoke with

a.m.,

A-

next

/, ,p--^ y N trr n5
nk r ^
\ v

Jyv

hofd.

Meek checked on the

Hopkins arrlved

about probation
11:15

Suieide

5:40 a.m. and refieved

at

p
-

the

noc note anylhing

did

on the

28. )

hr6^Lr:c-

to

W

shift,

night

once per hour bul

at

Leading

Hnnler rs

the

around

Fr-l Cal I

i.snF.l-

and was tying

shower staff

the

shower door

Hopkins didn't

BIOCk

support

say anything

bar.e

to

Love,

'

the Lhree othe- i'rndEes al I observed Love nake sLaLemenLS and take
($p
suqgested that Love was suicida.L
Doc.
which strongly
certain
actions
none of Lhe i-r-nares JeporLed !.rha Ll,ey saw
L
However,
no. 42 aL 32, 34, 51 ,)
(Id. )
and heard to the Jaif staff.
8 Love did not eat breakfast.
(Hopkins Dep, at 48. )
o

f

,-i^o
R'_"-:

the

bed

a^rtr..li.l
^i.ir
"l

sheet
irn

r.
r

1f

,'t-Frv.ow
lrv^s

around
hie

the

^.:1-iav
l^

ncrfornerl

l^v

.cnF:,.1

a.6..

cial'6r

tfi

cre---

cf

the

i^_

h^

s h o v . rre d o o r
ci^-cna1-.
'ad
.
n^

u

(Doc.

suppor:t bar,
Hnr!,
tr]'d.r i.<

^,1
t-r

no.

^-

dc

\

42

Lis

4rr,na

.lanrsiEion:
t{^nl.'-c

at

4I.)
Saio:

Like he had rhrev', Isicl
"IE jusr looked l'ke he was hanging a dty cotiel up.
j r o v e - t h e r e a n o L n e s h e e L w a s h a n q i n q o e r l e c c l y d o r . v . [ i k e h e L r a n L e dh i s o w n
(Id. aE 44-45.)
View-no Lhe facrs i'r rhe l.ight
makeshifL shower curtain."
the Court assumes Hopkins saw that Love had tied
nost favorable
to PLaintiff,
noE merefy draped - the sl^eet on the shot{er door suppf!- bar.

but
at

44.)

what he saw to

reported

Ereeman told

wenL back to

Lhe cell,

and was back

in

his

to

Hopkins

(Freeman Dep. ar

sheeL.

(Id.

F r e e m a n ."

30;

teI.I

Hopkins

Love

41; Hopkins Dep.
take

down the

44-45,)

Hopkins

to

Dep. aL

buL Love had already
bunk,

at

caken the sheet down
(Hopkins Dep,

apparent-Iy sleeping.rr

46.)

No further

tying

incident

was not

42 at

(Id.)

22; Freeman Dep. at 29.)

at

44,

1 1 ..-.v) n
LL
/ e

ae.

\
I

r,,L6h

ha

h

-

ni ^l.ori

rrn

in

recorded

Honk,rs

u.rt.|

was taken.

action

. hc

f ed

the

.

Le

caw

(See Doc. no.

log.

i nrnrr ac

f he

f r:\/q

jail

.

that

The sheet-

/ ,r,]v^yh \l z l h c
\
,

nAD.

at

LoVe

noc

ea I

d.id

'u At Hopkins's
Hopkins said he told
Freeman that Love had
deposltion.
(fiopkins Dep. at 46.)
And at one
the sheet on the support bar.
"thro\,nn"
Freenar recalled that the sheet ltas mere.Iy
dur'nq Freeman's deposir'on,
Foi"rE
(Freeman Dep. at 38.)
However.
"tucked under a n,attress" on the bunk bed,
Ereeman
and at other times in his deposit-ion,
duringt Freemants GBI interview
him that
Love was "tying"
Hopkins had lnforned
the sheet "to
recalLed
that
(!!:
The court
at
29; Doc. no.
42 aL 36. )
resolves
this
the bar."
in favat
of Plaintiff
and assumes Freeman knew the sheet had
inconsistency
do',in,
been "tied"
orly to che oar on
Free-na1sLated tnaL he EhoughL Hopk-ns ruas re'errj-g
Love's ou-r(, as opposed Eo the snower door support ba..
{l-reeman Dep. ar 29ar 31,)
Freeman apparenLly Lhorght chat Love lras me'ely
J0; Doc. no,42
(Freenan Dep. at 29-34, Dac.
tryrng to make a privacy tent on the bunk bed,
He even recal-s Deing told by qortrkins InaL Love ruas "raki-rg a
n o - 4 2 a L 3 ' 7- l
(Freeman Dep, at 29,
vrhich lrouLd not have been out of the ordinary.
tent,"
However, Freeman cou.Id not recafL Hopk.ins saying that the sheet had
31-32.)
(!!_a ar 38, 66. )
More inporrenL'y,
tte"e is cvid.n.e
beer ried La Lhe bunk.
to the sho!,rer door support
bar.
that
Freeman was toLd the sheet was tied
related
that
at one time in the
During Hopkins' s GBI lntervielr,
"Hopkins
prior
Love had tied
to 1unch, he observed that
a bed sheet around
morning,
supporE ba.ddvjsed thdE he intarnea SerqednL
tne sha,/er d'or
[Hopkins'
(Doc. no, 42
Freeman abaut this and was told to have Love remove the sheet."
Freeman acknow.Ledged that
Additionally,
he was
at
41 (emphasis added) . )
the shower
aware that inmates could corunit suicide by tying a sheet to either
door suppor L bar o- rhe brnk beds, and he would have considered iE ou! o'r'le
(See Freeran Dep. aL
o-oi nary if a sheor was tied dor{n to eiLher LocaEio-r,
32, 3't-38, 12.)
to

I Accordi'rg to
Freeman and return

dopkj ns, iE took under a minLte Lo -eporE the
(Hopkins Dep. at 44t 46,)
to the celL.
1

ir.roent

(Id.)

lunch.12
Love before

^i
hL

last

time

m
1.
u ^ ! r " d - - ^ L c 't l

1 ?
t . .L Jq

h
m
Y.rt.

Eraahr.

coming

from CelI

Bfock

A and found

door.

(Doc. no.

42 at

31 .)

L irca-

for
bed

sheet

f

tied

from

Several

1 r fl- a '-l T,rl\ra
!vvL

the

whr 1c

In

shower door

qhec-

(ld.

not

breathing

f i r a f i r r h fa r <
defibril-1ator
at

41.)

13

he-

(Id.

ProceduraL

to]d

to

on the

Freeman

)

Love
caIled

bar

and

at

neck.

Brandon Thacker
IOWered

then

the

LOVe

touch/

but

The offlcers

37.)

to

his

paramedics

and

an

utifized

attempt

to

revive

tO

was
and

efectronic
(Id.

Love.

a hospita.L and pronounced dead

ac 38. )

History
l1 ,

nr:rrinhi Idren

l'z Hopklns

and

an unsuccessful

On Eebruary
af

(Id.

CPR

He was transpo.rted

upon arrival.
B.

in

(Id.

Love was warm to

nprformed

beating

firefighters,

and had no pufse.

41.)

nni<o

Freeman that

tofd

support

t.ra< r't-1-

ground.

h:naina

inmates

GDPS InvestigaLor

51. )

thc

:

and found Love hanging wjLh a

ceII,

the

at

two

stal].

of f ice.rs,

41,

aL

uu

the

horzd

one inmate

shower

the

other

(Id.

arrived.

in

entered

assislancer

(Id. )

observed

The Suicide

oP}i,!

h > , . . 1h e n r a , - l

Hopkins

that

(Id.)

suicide.

the

4.

was the

This

2014,
and

Freenan

Plaintiff
as

that

Gloria

administrat.ix

Love

had

not

J.
of

eaten

A1len,
Love's

breakfasi:

on behalf
estare

or

Lunch.

(r d . )
t'An

auLopsy .report conf .irmed EhaE Ehe cause
(Doc. no. 42 at
the manner of death was suicide.
presence
narijuana,
cocaine,
revealed
the
of
lorazepam .in Love's body at the time of his death.

oI oeaEh was hanging and
A toxicology
report
66. )
a-Lprazolam (Xanax),
a-rd
(Doc. no. 42 at 2t 69.)

fi

I a r'l

l-ha

.lai,nc

a^mnl

^i nf.

ao:irst

whiCh

)a1

O

as

ro

m.\\ra.l

Robinson,

Croverown/

December 20,
aIl

the

no.

2I .)

Plaintiff's
q rL-t ri r r -

\^rerA
n^rl-

icct

ncndino

case

20!1,

the

as

h^t

i fv

r-h6

a^,rrr-

-hat

r.lnrior

che party

was

^l:im

l-\\r

20II ,

rr-'

lvl \,'
qL - A \ /
r j qj

called

oen.Jinn

In

parties

-n

nrrnr

fhc

a.\rr11

:^.i

Fcl-

^^L

^ r,rl ai-Fd

F r^trn.')

:n.j

, l^>urnl,

j.c

P-Fi,'-itf
/Doc,

to

amend

flr^n-trrl

Order,

and
to

The

required,
<ar

the

(Doc. no, 27.)

that

purposes

iho

for

the

^^_'ll_^
rr9
Ps'ruf

reopen.

dar,-ll

th^

l-he

29.)

the

to

241 1.

?-

for

Plaintiff

and motion

reconsideration

reopen be
iha

(Doc,

a motion

set

file

^I
Ir U - i l - ,L l l

4nr-v

notice

of

also

party

eiLher

l - , ^I rcaI iI l , h
Ire

of

tAis

had arguably
no. 13 at 2.)

Court
28,

a

CourL

the

October

wishes Lo have the Court resume considering. "

o Defendants
1Oa-l

to

On

and dismissed

motion

CompLaint. which also

for

motion

o:r-linn<

13. )

On March 21,

deadfine

a mot ion

"should

1Doc. no.

23.)

statistical

a

nl

filed

for

or

settlemenL

r he

Pfaintiff

(Doc. no.

resolution.
the

nn

and Harden.

f(-)

mnfinn

and

On April

2010,

for

v'hcn-

..lnqFnr

dispute
cfosed

motion

y!'rq

1.)

December 24, 2AIA Order.

its

Crl1\/etown

Robinson,

Groverown,

amend the

Court to reconsider

r,t

State

i"Robinson"),

irrdamanr

granLed this

(Doc. no.
to

i:1

and

(Doc. no.

Harden.l'

and

On December 30,

a molion

n:rl-

yq!

Court

against

recons ide rat ion.
fifed

rhe

2010,

claims

f n! r
v

r-il- \/

Robinson

Harden ("Harden").

nofandrrtc

federaf

tho

-

Al

Director/Chief

Sergeant ChrisLopher
)

Frnnl,inc

FrFtrmF--

("Grovetown"),

VariouS

aSSertS

stared:
rnay also

-dS

LO

nr.Jer

any

tnat

(ld.)

sEated a secL-on

On the
report

setting

26tf)

as

a

moti

t o

rofion

fL o
V

r F V P nI a n
I U o L I

Court

:mend:
t-akF

to

n,r-

on

May

. . 1r - !h a r
L r !

rnr.i

qrru

15,

no,

nrnJn ri u Jr r <
u I r n

Sr'mmarrr

. r er n! r 'rei n e
Ysr u ,

en1-iIIed
5 6 /\e/)
u
rv

.

The

36. )

--"

no,

the

Court

filing
-"=nded

The

31. )

Plaintiff

that

wiShed

or motion
Of

the

i c

as

'iudcJment as

Fa.rfs are

parties
nf-

:nnrnnrr

^n\/

a

"ma-erial"

need

to
tO

ancl

in

matter
fhev

filed

sununary
numerous

oonosif

ion

j-n

3 1- 6 2 . )

STA}iIDARD

atF

mal-erial

iI

have

(See Doc. nos.

, SI,MIIIARY WDGMENT

i r u s Yn rm! er n rd r r r e

J

moved for

Hopkins

qnnn^rj-

ir

ovi'lanr-^

summary judgment.

r rl Ji y u Ln r l - c
s r
s

to

Freeman and

2A12,

II
uu"u"u!]/

^n

reconslderation

n,'-\- =\/
i

that

mot-ions,l'

for

the motion

*^+i

(Doc.

^^,lrt

for

f i l i rr

construed

+L^

order.

-^fi€,,,h^

v

(Doc.

judgment.
hriaf<

-^+

Court

/'r-anj- o/'l

.^qd

on her motion

rufe

rhose

(Doc.

scheduling

c l, r i

d r , . 1 q rn \ /
^r y

rn

a RuIe

2011, the

l-hF

reoDen

filed

proposed schedul ing deadlines,

forth

previous

Court's

the

the

on

Lhe parties

2411 deadlj ne,

on November L4,

30.)

no.

28,

october

o"t

v

fact

of

and

law."

coufd

's

no

movanl

Ls

"there

affect

the

Fed.
the

R.

Civ.

P.

ouLcome of

l5 Throughour P ainrill's
lor
on Freeman and Hopk'ns's rot'or
b-'e'inq
presenEs
the
various
argumenLs regard'ng
PlainLiII
sJrnmary judqmenL,
(!99 Doc. na. 54 at 23-25i
liability
of Defendants Grovetown anci Robinson.
H o \ ' . t e v e r ,t h e c o u r t ' s
Doc. no. 54, Ex. 1 at 6, 10. 15; Doc. no. 61 at 9-15. )
against
Grovetown and
afl
the claims
dlsmissed
December 20, 2010 order
did not compLy w-ith the Cour:t's May 3, 2011 Order
Robinson,
and P.Iaintiff
motion for reconsideration
the terminated
a scheduLe to revive
estabLishing
and the prevlously
These motions remain terminated.
and motion to amend.
on sununary
To resurrect
these
claims
remain dismissed.
cLains
dismlssed
judqmenL LuoJld excuse Pfaintiff's
noncompliance wiEhouE a showing of qood
and a Iair opportuniry
to address t1e
cause ano dep.rive Delendants of ror'ce
at su[unary iudgnent.
merits of these clains

10

the

suit

Lobby,

Liberty
rhe

view

5 14 ,

U. S.
in

-ii-.t-

i^ne

(en banc)

party

has

r-arrv

Corp.

tc

J --h"F
- -

r'l

c.aee

CLark,
Adickes

v.

v.

chnr^ri nn

to

the

a.-n

41 5

94L Y.2d

puncruarion

and

of

-,

an

rhaL

file,

.n

the

there

are

entitfed

to

2

non-movant has
the

ie

fLprp

-^

(11th

606-08

398 U.S.

movant

has

no genuine
judgment

11

its

issues

as a matter

one
non-

--cve

a

Coats

&

and Celotex

it

initial
of

in

of

(explarnrng

the

opposition,

met

v.

1991)

Before

IIIZ,

the
f^

1-44 (1970)

Of

burden

of

See Clark

31.1 (1985))
in

F.3d

^"i.16h^a

Cir.

(1986) .

burden

efement

the

bulden

the

inltial

for

323

3L7,

AtlanLa,

of

604,

& Co.,

basis

the

essentiaf

rh:'

showing

bearS

case.

477 U.S.

the

the

WhO

r-irU

non-movanL's response

whether

burden

non-movant's

Kress

Catrett,

is

.lana..lc

negating

lv

S.H.

eva.Iuare the

it

non-moving

Prop.,

Real

477 U.S.

Catrett,

movant may carry

g2g E.2d

Inc.,

showing

must

iab-Le inferences

(internal

on

When the

by

61

necess.r\/

consider

1993) .

Cir.

J-ri

v.

Eir-?^.rv:rv
ro

ways -

two

Corp.

of

the

RA.]'^

justif

iniLial

the

macerials

h rr-lc'r

1-h'<

+rr:t

(l1th
:1-

co

reference

:r

that

1991)

Celotex

ro

f..rt

Four Parcefs

Cir.

moving

motion.

m/1\ranf

to

Tenij-h

V.

Co.

and musL draw "aIl

U,S,

(11th

by

Court,

nranf

favorabfe

The Court

v.

^mifta.i\

The

1115

most

IndUs.

Anderson

(1986) .

248

v.

favor. "

I431

L428,

of

trIeC.

law,

242,

lighL

Lhe

(1985),

587

fitsl

How

in

facts

substantive

411 U.S.

Inc.,

VAt c rchi-^

n^rt\7

qoverninq

the

under

Court

can

musL f .Lrst
burden

of

material

facc

and

of

Jones v.

law.

CiLy

of

Columbus,

F.3d

124

curiam)

A mere concLusory

meet the

burden

is

-

the

(11th

254

statement

trial

at

248,

that

Cir.

(per

1,991
)

non-movant cannot

the

insufficient.

Clark,

movant carr.ies

its

929 E.2d

at

608.
-

If
Lne

if

and only

may

non-movanr

"demonstrat Iinql
f h^

s["r'r^- '

nrer. lrr.lcs

Ir!gUfuJUJ

bears

the

'ij-s

burden
--

rFqn.\'rqa

iniLial

there

that

j-ha

nr e Y s^ f| , Y i n r - r
r u o s

a

ra-er,

evidence

to

1116.
fact,

contains

evidence

or

w.ithstand
a I I orrod

reneaf

See Morris

o-ha-w.

v.

rhF
sc

Lrr

def

Ross,

h,'

!y

663 F.2d

F^^6r-

Id.
rri nn

.\n

r:nn'ai

1032,

r

D , r ' r^

1.2

^€

with
.i

vj I

the

on a

record

by the movant
to

on

the

The non-movant
nl e:r] i nne

in

1033-34

rac^^^^

evidence

based

1117.

ncd

mot.ion at

sufflcient

triaf

l-ha

With

FiczpaurLck,

lgnored"

at

iCS

-Fcn.^]nd

show that

at

'l

ions

n^n-m.t,,rrf

n r n r z i . v u v. l
Lle

PLvv

allcoal

fact

non-movant

verdict

evldence

rcl

l _rrz

of

l^y ,
p,

aflirmative-Ly

'rrn|ct

or

motion

i r:i cnr:rr

l.rrrrdcn

r:onclrrqorrr

ino

R:f l^pr

verdict

,

Carfjed

evidence

either

additionaf

with

arri rjcn F i a rrr

i l- e

movant

be negated. "

was "overfooked

that

d.irected

a

the

directed

soughc to

non-movant must

the

forward

"come

a

]

non-movant must tailor

^^^-r-r/arj-

withstand

Lhe

the movant shows an absence of

If

material

the

wrrr nh

I \^

facc

on Lhe maLerjal

2 F.3d at

trial,

^-

vrrty

issue

When

hrr

f .^l

A'

a material

movanL presents

the

sufficient

trial

at

ncthnd

lf

indeed

r--^-+

proof

of

burden.

is

burden,

j udgment

s ununa y
r

avoi d

initial

l-hF

r-r'nnl ainL.

(11t,h Cir.
aIf

idavits

procedure

l^'rr

56.

1981) .
or

AS

In
notice
'ho

the

of

s ru "LnLm : r! vj
r
r u Ls

orher

I

I g vrYdr orr en e n r r! r

in

44.)

ihF

f-iIing

n^w

j nvolved.

parties
i r 1 - .. r
Jq!u!
rnr'l

r.rl^^ nr-<t
nnr

nn

- . . F f ^ - ^cA
u
^€i-an

2d

9!EoLryl

624,

-r-^
LllC

in

to

violation

nr r or.Llui s e s - a - c r ^ l
r
v uu

consLituLiona I

ei rher

l u
! q: w

.n

right.

strong
of

anrrorn
Yvvr-rrr

the

Pr

\/

i n^
"Y

for

d

have

iL '^ r r
r

in

or

Lhe

l aw

of

I llL!rr5,

a

dif

Amrrnalq.)n -

that

all

judge

a

basis

an

for

difficuft

on

'.,ho

involving

ficuf

469

mind,

t

and
q'rnr'
""Hv.

tr

Courl

the

uors.

Freeman and Hopkins were deliberately
likelihood

al lered

In

has

Standard

42 U.S.c.

Fr

Cr-if f iLh

opposicion

well

IUr

With

2OA1 .
)

Indifference

a

default.

(per curiam) .

cases

as

na4an-r:nr.

c-Laims that

in

"are

i sq req

M^mh^rrrr_flrpttc

"

^ ,1,--- --r
5 U U s L c t l l - - v Li \ / a

Deliberate

indifferent

ar.\

_i^h

staLed,

difficu't

crrmnathv

€^-

^-

or

COnSideration.

suicide

.i i cnrta.l

(W.D. Wis.

Pl.aintiff

suicide

- \,

nf

ts

of

1985)

Cir.

of

affidavi

requirements

for

aptly

They are

i nnc

her

DISCUSSION

jail

a

6pe61.za

loc<

626

^
LU

A.

fool

^r^rr

r h:nle

LULII5

fike

event

unfortunate

file

materials

rinc

courl

district

one

Plaintlff

and informed

to

825 (11th

III.

As

riohl-

notice

the

for

:c

p6j-inn

rhe

gave

Court

the

and Lhe consequences of

opposirion,

The time

prcl

a^v n i r e d - ,
! ! uu
s y

rtrlaq-

112 E.2d 822,

saLjsfied.

of

summary judgment

Therefore,

y-__lgjryI_fS$,
are

Cferk

for

motion

naLerials

(Doc. no.

the

action,

this

the

S 1983.
r"nlation

case oI
l-l

that

Love

would

Section
of

a pretria.L

an

commit

1983 claims
Underlvrnc

detainee

Iike

\j- LF

Lnrre.

!vv9,

r i'^rhlh

Ancrrimen-

unusua.L pun.ishment do

1092,

Due

Process

cich

"PretriaI

nrFl

\r

and

Fn.-orrnaqses
-n

riohr

ho
//

c|inir]a

a

Tr'l

"To

/.rrr.\i,el-

1983,

r . l .. n l a v e . J

.l€.1 iheraf

u!JPru),!v

a d d a r " l)

indif

(quoting

than

m e r e n e g - L i g e n c e ,"

Iess

than acrs

or

825,

835

harm t.o a prisoner
that
f he

risk."
'ai

I

Id.
off

ir-ial

is
at

the

(11

is

to

a

Inr-lrrli^n

a

Thus.

the

of

at

taki

nn

sorelhind

by

more

"something

causing

f - rf ' l
!d

^r
u!

risk

r

harm

Brennan,

rF^
!,L\j

of

+^

r^-

serious

disregarding

must prove

know'er-loc

nf

(emphasis

lLl5)

recklessly

plaintiff

under

officiaf

Farmer v.

substantlal

srtb-ipr-t i ve

T4

jail

the

purpose of

\\rnrina
ouLtrr9

equivalent

"harl

and

suicide

sarisfied

result."

Tnetar.l

836.

to
which

inj uries,

' t F " r j -; r ' l c

the very

harm wiff

indlfference

defiberate

2008).

right

Lhe

nr i cnnerrq

Cook. 402 F.3d

for

11994).

Cir.

inirr-iae

the

EO

sLandard

omissions

knowledge that

with

511 U.S.
with

or

and

show that

indifference

the

have

baSic

conv.icted

(11th

prlsonerr s

a

ferenCe

rleliberate

Whrlc

f^

l- ror'l\

must

Id.

own 1ife."'

nmi

Fourteenth

the
ri rrht

954

self-inflir'+-.1

for

e

952,

and

2005).

rrccrf Lrr

plaintiff

'Lhe

of

-

P-yLrr_LdL

i nn

Monroe

Cir.

rhc

i1l-ness

Iiability

establish

section

Cfause

prisone.rs

for

r.rr.l1-F/-l--edfrom

of

Amendment guarantees

'r^--r

LU

I

Sheriff

(11th

1115

clctaineec

other

treatment

medical

^*"^

Cook v.

Thomas, 516 F.3d

detainees

receive

r:al

Eighth

the

that

//

his

F.3d

/-r'.Arant pFc

necessities

r:^hf

apply. "

" ltl he

!rYL'L

not

402

A'rFn.jmenj-

hi tr ^-^

nrnh.

nf

a

risk

thar
of

harm"

serious

Farmer,

unfess

an excessive

risk

be aware of

that

a substantial

risk

draw the inference.
" IS] ince

issrte

of

954;

official

saf ety,'

official

the

inference

the

cannot be

and disregards

coufd

must

be drawn

and he must also

of

1,999) (quotations

indifference

srrhier-f i 1,'tr awareness
fact

material

s

evist

ci rcumstantiaJ,

Campbell v.

awareness. "

rnat

knows of

deliberate

albeit

evidence,

contains

conducL

516 F.3d at

serj-ous harm exists,

dafan,.l^n-rq

nAnl'rrc

by

") .

finding

a

.14 l-ha
a

of

prison

or

from which

facts

ri<k-

risk
Gish,

officiaf

the

.inmate heafth

to

both

.irrlrnr'

that

837 ("lAl

511 U.S. at

liable

found

"disregarded

more than mere negligence, "

constituted
see afso

(2)

and

169 F.3d

Sikes,

and citations

of

fhe
if

anlrt

of

requires

record

subjective

1364 (11th

(emphasis in

omiLted)

feleVant
thu

such

1353,

a

Cir.

originaL)

hrr -he S nreme Court:

As stafe.l

Whethar

e

nr'con

official

had

rorrrr'site

the

knnwlerlrre

of a subsrantial
risk is a question of fact subject to
in the usual ways, including
demonscration
inference
from circumscantiaf
and a faclIinder
evidence,
may
prison official
knew of a substantial
concfude that a
risk from the very fact that the risk was obvious.
Farmer,
id.

at

511 U.S.
852

daci s i or

lo

must

have

1d'That
words.

does

(Bfackmun,

I o.]:rr-

rerne.iv a

(internal

aL 842

n-i

risk
known

a tri er
mean
not

qon

so

J.,

about

6f

and

.) .

m: r,

it

he

irfer

musl

Lr.wl

do

15

held

substantiaf

it

f^.f

that

r4rz

so.

omicted);

see also

("Under

concurring)

of f ir-ia'q

obvious

citations

tu

e.l

Pr-son

the

liable

for

that

the

Thus,

La

Court's
failure

officiafs

" twl hile

.h\':^r

ollic-aIs

c-

in

charged

the

^rhpy

r .j. E h
r

mere

defendantr s
di<n.qif

fha

ilfF-

circumstantiaf
and of

denial

the

ev.idence,

1310 (S.D.

2d 1303,

nrnrzi

inc.Luding the

j nference

resulLing

of

2001),

de

is
srrffi

obviousness

of

the

not
gjgnl

facts

risk,

to

support

a finding

City

of

Atniore,

168 F.

v.

Holfand

AIa.

awareness

'rrsf

nlai'rt''f

awareness."

subjective

subj ective

of

of

supp

37 Fed. Appx

505 (11rh

Lhe quesL-ion is

whether a

aff'd,

Cir . 2002) .
In

the contexr
was

defendanr
suicidal

suicidal
never
v.

/11j-h

v.

1qg4).

to

stronq

fikel

official
his

to

harm wifl

rnighL

of

rletainee's

a

suicide
"

Cir.

2003)

be de] ihe-a-elv

has
Cagle

(quotation

inrii ffe.enr

to

he must have had "knowledge
a mere possibiliry

than
occur."'

sholr

Corrun'n, 10 F.3d

prevenL

to

(l1th

own life,

ihood rather

i.ldiflerence

delibe-aEe

989

derainee's

indifference.

failure

F.3d

oi

of

self-infliction

Cnty.

deliberate

980,

rhe

knowledoe

"Ahsenr

constitute

raking

to

Jefferson

ILhe]

Fo- a ia'l

a deLainee's
'a

Tittfe

r-i r

334

Sutherland,

a
o ' n ii - t - d l

of

indifferent

Lendencies,

been hefd

suicide,

deliberately

tendencj-es,

-q?q

16?6

a jail

of

thar-

Cook,

Ehey

442 F.3d

knew Lhe

rhar

the

at

1115

Jnderlying

lacLs

-u !rr..Jr -ne tdc_j qdve rlse
or nonexistent."
Farmer, 511 U.S. at 844.
was insubstantial
"So, lrhife
is
not
the
ultimate
inquiry,
it
obvlousness
of
the
risk
may serve
as
evidence
that
the
officials
actuaL.Ly knew of
risk. "
circumstanliaL
the
Co.Leman . Parkman, 349 F.3d 534, 538 (Bth Cir. 2003).
v
"fn other words. a
district
court shouLd never ask a jury whether a risk was obvious or whether
the official
shouLd have kno\'in, The court must ask !^rhether the officiaL
knew.
But a plaintiff
need not secure officials'
admissions to support a verdict.
^',r

nal

R:il-ay

aUA.l

a

t:lhair

rl:irIi'f

,,r<^,

n.ll\,1

rna

ri<k

in

.ar

'must have known' evidence."
& n.8).

thAr

Id.

\:.rr'>l-',

knew'

at

538 n.3

(cltinq

L6

answer

wich

sulficienl

Farmer/ 511 U.S. at

843

/^,r^f
\ Ysv

i-^

..^16

!+rrY

??/

tr

^ P P V r l -! r rLnui' r r L J l - \ '
Jnn^

'i-srr,-i.icnr

f o

of prisoners.

"

Tha

at

or

S 1983 for

\'-he

"1

\ t r , r t h o r as
tvYlrrs,
hrrzo

Cook,

r'-mmi tti

lL-I hf .L r l -

'a'-

fL)Fin.r

Hnllerd-

rrrr

sricicle

16q

F.

fhi s
o c ] .^ l - , 1 iq h

the

a

h:c

'l

Cir.
mean

month oLd

been

Fmnr

ro

to

considered
nf

of

a

this

ic

Lhat

e

f Or

inmate

r ' \r

a.l

or

suicide

r-^rr rqa

arran

rhraaro-on

th:l-

'rnate

n-otect

dellberate

ca.re

from

indifference.

lorroTinn

Grcacnn

rhar

prior

t-hreats

all
of

likelihood
femnora-

cannot
I rr

e.g. /

rz

See

FowIer v.

(11th

-

where

iaif

at

and

Karn,

"'
S!f

Cir.

id.

the
at

On

prior
1313

Chattooga Cnty.,

2009)

officiafs

aLLempLS

1312-13.

be shown if

remote.

364-65

T1

Id.

suicide.

363,

incldent

law

990)).

case-Law); see afso,

307 Fed. Appx.

ctens

1112

Iikefihood

w.rq

168 F. Supp. 2d

cannot be l-iabf e under

r"a tc D O n S i b l
' "

,ari

amount

prior

are

("IT]he

1116

n-nnnei-inn-

I al,e

2.1, af

strong

af lennf

(surveying

two

not

;r q]-ronc

contra-y,

thrFe-

Ga.,

does

t,.

can

Snnn

E.2d 829, 835 (1lth

inm:ro

care

who never had threatened

rtr rar-l- lrr

:n

-hp

"

nrn,rir,]inrr

suicide

officiafs]

thic

norq-,r-ol

l e n a r r l a L lU^ a
/ YL

qrrir-rric.

si^la.F

zor)

Holland,

at

a prisoner

of

/ - cl o l ayr l
u- ^ f

wil- h

6-14-64,'l

jail

of

and who had never

flin

qnr

n-i

rennrrni

Ijait

i a

954.

4A2 F.3d

that

m^r.

f hnsc

comrnit suicide.

suicide

ett-emrtfe.l srir:ide
-ick

516 F.3d at

to

threats

the

nn

fikelihood

makes clear

circuit

I ilrr

*[T]he

^riain:r11

in

r ^ r iF h o r r r

nirn,rm<l,annae

see also

1311;

I i:hi

strong

sufficiently
attempts

crri /-i dc

imn.\se

r,,

ra+nh:cic

Op6

3f

lar

Cish,

nnl

?,-]

(finding

observed

that
inmate

a sheet and concfuded he was a threat

with

-6m^^Fr'1

csner-ial

"'

since

the

evafuated

M ^ m h / " \ r 1 r ^ l r A r -+ a

A6,q

two prjor
f ^

/^ra^t- a

a

F.

Supp.

rtt-

amnr

Tha

nri.\r

.
9 9 6 !F

- !v

m/-\nl-hc

l-hrF:l

and been free
Srrnn

.r

13a?

a-

as .r r l r P L1 1 n 1 q
u
L a J

r r a jv

67R

:

nanr

I I rr

Li qf nrrr

a

nf

l.\rr

raf

l-

that

ramni

,

996

suicide

a\

- - ^
m.r. - - l ra _- r q j - . _ _ _v e a-p^p e a r e o g e n u r n e

manipulaL ion or

Thrrc

r rrnvf! l, i.i o r n i n a
er v
+

q^

l r n a r ^ r le d r r e

(finding

f amn/-)r:

^l

l-h^ I

days was sufficient

Al a

1998)

n.\f

:l- iamr,\l-

of

ten

had

i-deation);

suicidaf

/ ej- aj- i n.r

rr

essionals

nrof

no

past

Ala.

L':e

indicia

of

JUI/y,

al

G-atta\z

(N.D.

1383
tL'/1

.

mcd'r:a'

found

and
)el

rrrra<f :.h\

jtrrv

^r<t

qrlnn

where

artempLs within

1368,

i h

inmate

tr

suicide

lv

hang himse-lf - was

to

nf

pretense.

GrefIey.

suicide

threats

deliberate

<l-.nr.rrna nf

take

jndjf

ference.

"Lu

^--+,.-rl.,ht

(N. D. Caf.
(iail

L?^\'

have

been

in

l-he

conrext.

of

F.3d

at

suicidal,
was

954-55
officer

unfocked

access to

the

and

prisoner

{although
did
thus

surroundings

officer

nor know thaI
did

knew
po]ice

know that

not

loaded gun) .

l8

of

j ail

the
of

122

of

suicide
official

prisoner's

suicide

in

creates

that
car's

366

the

c o r n r nL s u i c i d e . "
i

will

clrh^

threats

cambinatian

feasibility

the

prisoner's

the
thaL

the

E

307 Fed. Appx. at

Additionalfy,

that

and

tendencies

c1a

Cnn^^F^

Fowler,

e.9.,

n:ctl

"aware

suicidal-

of

inmate had used idfe

knew that

official

likelihood

Cifv

1985),' see afso,

hi<

must

.r

a

strong

Gish,
detainee

security

detainee

woufd

the

516
was

screen
have

rin:llrr-

"n-i qnr

risk

substantial
l,ahi'.fv

from

the

to

j_
_f

_,

whether

the

the

515 F.3d at

nr^r'1f

hr'\k,F\/cr

at

indifferent

rer-kl

if

844,'

Ja j ler

LhaL

to
to

see
this

officiaf's

safetv,

indifference."
Clr.

preventative

of

ess

defiberate

di sraoarr'l

nf

the

(clting
h:q

found

at

that

Ithe

An\/

I i nrr nrr q 1 rr

7994)

few cases are

principles.

19

be

Eoley,

who

considered

rrenrFna.rl-c

that

984).

See Gish,
The Eleventh

thaf

feil

constitutes

City

the

offjcials

intervals.

Ar.firmFnT-

Be.Icher v.
A

of

case,

co commiL suicide,"

334 F.3d at

"rcicr-j-crJ

jail

\'alI

detaineel

mo.re frequenc

the

cannot

re'ro'l6

"..'J

Cagle.

nnn

of

tendencies
lhev

if

necessari I y

measures

circumstances

be used by

lnmat e

(11th

511 U.S.

nre.sume

free

errsn

we must look

inmate
, , - 1 €e

found

risk-

.^^a...^,,

of

suicidal

detainee

955

^ -l

1400

raq

inclj ='erenr

foreseeably

f-i rr-rrit

risk

generally

has

inmate's

an

observe

wa

threats,

l -r - . 6

d e rr er rLrt i rnr ir n o
! I
r t
Y
v!

fhe

Farmer.

were del-iberatel-y

particular

the

on

. l e l i h c r a fL eLll vj
s
r

could

acts

fn

),

l"Becarrsc

suicide

adequacy

E.Ievench Circuit
know of

at

mav be

of

Cofeman, 349 F.3d at 538-39.

l r l hi I e
depends

989

ranr.r

known risk."

^..

F- jrj

known

indifference

safetv

-^^^^-rhlrr

averted. "

Cofe's

I ^

or

knew

actrr,rllv

r s D t - , \ _ .r/rL r E ! . r r s a D U r r a ! f
.

Butfer's

*lalrre-

risk. ")

health

was not

?"4

Jailer

who

r^r

t_h ^ . -y
__E

Cole was aware of

or

inmate

harm ulLimacely
i.arr lo.

officiafs

Ala.,

inn

l.T

deliberate
30 E.3d

iflusLraLive

of

1390,
rhese

E^Y

avrm^lA

irr

recent

deLainee's

jailer

observed

detainee

j on,

televis

implements
sheets,

i:i

hang

rather

"unusual"

shirt

to

T L F \l /
r L's

n v \ rve .el
lto
s

hin

him

evrLzye r r r
u
{

jait

fjve

rrrrL'

i:i

I

a

f o

anrl

rha

iail

id

et

of

r^3d^rrd -. r
r c d 5 u - . r , J J r- .L y

coufd

Cir.
€ri r rn r
r n L

the

2005),
I h^{LirdL

suicide
(3)

deta.inee,
used

to

ir-ials

City

did

harm

the

o

su.ic.ide where
of

be

Snow v.

in

contrast,

prevent

the

evi denced

+-il
)otL

he :

r.isk,
not

(2)

were

F.3d

30
chi

-t-

-o

at

mnve

hi c

a

1393.

t"n

at

tO

a

1393-94.

del Lberate

of

cnrirled

his

r-her-1,a61 6n

Id.
lack

a

tying

detainee

sl-Fns

inccl

undervrear/ "

inmates.

suicidal-

nf

a

aw:rr

dtrl-A

989-

of

20

424 F.3d

Citronelle,

Eleventh
^€.i-ial

(1)
did

and

held

Circuit

r ]u f l fi v lL ! q e r rto l
-ror L .y
u a

did
not

remove items

onesel,f,

to

orral jf

j66l

1401,.

(oc

officials

j-nnk

984,

989 & n.13.

neck.

his

at
f j-ha

his
at

observed

inltia-ad

measures

L26'7, L2'10 (1lth

!o

1

.leal- wi-th

--^--^-F-r'i--^

^^11r/..l
u9uIL,r

cal

a^-l

minL:-ac.

PreverruaLfvc

In

Id.

and to

l^:ro

.a

eorri nnecl f o

irmr.-itr,

suicide.

offlciafs

fixture

light

. nd j f fe-anr-e-

from

of

detainee's

the

ih^t

of

stripped

Id.

f .\raqFF

efastic

instrument

Belcher,

as

contents.

1-^

circuit

closed

such

n.4,

because he

been

the

with

via

had

"cefl

ra.l

984

indifferenc

suicide, "

ranrri

at

F.3d

minutes

and pocket

nnl-

himself

334

fifteen

detaj nee's

\\u:<

I ar

woufd

In

every

shoefaces,

^J1_:^t^1
\Jr!
!u-Ld-L

deliberately

migrht assist

that

belt,

'l'ha

on

was not

the

and

r

threats,

suicide

However. rhe
the

-l^.l
Jdrr

r^.'t1 ^

(4)

not

tell

increase
from
did

the
not

1262,
a

\/

jury

F-r1^/..I
Ld

other

i aif

observation
cef l- that
place

the

^^+

^;

-^^

i-

drunk

y,

Similarl
F

in

Mombourquette,

ro,rcnnahle

L,,s

r-her-ks.

469

at

F.

?d

Srnn.

l-hF

hrrno

herseIf

onlv

harl

fact

a
ard

nn-inrr

//

/cnnhpqr

-iai l

nn-

l- hF

n
!
y !r i - vn r

q'rr cr

deta-Lnee on suicide
ql^AFf q

norJi r-al

- !
c^l ^ r] ^\ -r-!^c : > b e 5

anrl

Seek

nrofessionals.

With

nf

nr

these

thaL

I iahil

IegaI

A t L F m, n r /- L J
u t LL ui

IUfLher
at

-LiabIe

rr di qreo:rrltr.l

__ r

q

which
"

from

Id.

harming

should

Sce

i.l

thF

-Fi1

be

/"Thc

on.Ly when they

r]

do

nffiqiSlg

-J
|JtdLc

,in an observation
di feCr i nn

'rom

the

ceI.L, rake

srrne-iri so:S

Or

641 -49.

principfes
:nd

nuf t.

actlons

detainee
irrr

Lo

6ar'li^r

refrain
the

take

wil-L

some minor

to

cell

surnmary judgment because chey

puc her

Id.

r .'',l / \ ^ c L l l c . L E.- . a-a m . - . .
! -lll- l-\^r
l r ,. rn

rar-klessl

rJp

-l--'-

T,r kewice-

denied

watch,

^r.'^\, tha

lofi

nrirrinel\\

i^

nol

noL

uSe

m,atorraIs

took

nrcr-r'rda

Mombourquette were also
^f

nurse

'\did

could

ra"

a

noL ho.Id officia-Ls
<

She

che detainee

rhc

where

attempLs did

nurse

rre-ru

from

riiri

does

suicide

olricr-- s

the

in
-

nlnealrr
u!vJrtj

Conscirution

anv

that

promise

ind_if ferenCe

The

sheFl-s-

J

determined

645-46.

ar

""j

The

nhccrrzed

lenor.r

f ar

orcicr morF 'rForrFrl

he.l

646.

n.,rhi-'.

trl

watch or

suicide

,-la1-Fr.aF'

d ^ - : iq r re ue l
L r r u

e-Liciting

jn

)n

ffh-

u!

harqelf

hncni

court

r.lel iberate

inrlrrdino

he-selffl-he

to

distrrct

recent

a detainee's

r^r-r*^-

f-nr

L LrrL

ner

the

rinri

r-nrrlrl

ir'r'r

a nurse who knew of
Pr aus

return

or

and observation.

treatment

rhit

tank

in

I-lnnlz j ne

fhc

2I

ri<1.

mind,
ln ra o
i n

nf

the

Courr

a 'L'_ S, U D i] e^cf t l vie. -

Love's

Suicide.

now

awafeness

B. Application
Arareness

7, Subjectiwe
Whether
awareness

pr Lson

a

the

of

jury.
heavily

upon

knowledge

Lheir
the

of

i -p e - i n n n r r

511

q

.nr-ri

subjective

there

is

awareness of
at

U.S.

a

a

risk.

a

whjle
reSofve

jury

not

Lherefore

facts,

to

a

of

focused on this

af

the

denial

as long

incfudinq

finding

of

suicide.

HoI-Land, 168 tr. Supp. 2d at

842;

their

Their

539.

disposicive,

support

I j.kelihood

subjeclive

issrres

evidence,

the
rely

believe

jtv

Coleman, 349 F.3d at

for

Hopkins

had no
may

creclihil

c i -r c u m s t a n t i a . I

strong

they

subjective

fact

of

Freeman and
that

rhe

requi site

question

842.

Cannot

Risk

the

own assertions

sufficient
of

is

at

awareness is

obviousness

had

risk

U.S,

summary judgment phase.
of

the Suicide

official

suicide

Earmer',

of

the

subjecr-ive

See Farmer,

1310.

as

511

The Courc has

evidence. -

circumstantiaf

F

(See
and DelenddnEs nave presenLed expert opin-ons.
Both P.Iaintiff
However, rhe Court has not found Lhese expert
nos.
48, 52.)
35,

Doc.

^hisinn<

r.

assessi nE
in.llr.li.^
qAA

l..a

Lhe
rho

r>r1-:

El F\rcnrh

M "^" m :h ^ , : : _ /: d' ,' , A r f a
!]
-: 1_:
"

vg"

F.3d 553, 557-58
^F

i,i

thA

I

c',i-i,.ia

.uaf^da

2a

)1'

trwrart

lr

F

Add-r
-npq

<l^n^.r.1

l6'q

C
tr

oI

ralav"'}l

^-

h--r-,-l

obvi ousness

sui cide

r-rir

harra

Srlhn

)d

risk
rclF.l

:l

F.l

6AA

to

Lo

the

rol:r..a

l.i

task

ailers,

rind

^.

fand,

at

courLS

of

o v h o . r_ _
_

Mrt^c

ri

tn

d p p e dl ,

f_ _ _ _ 1 . T L O " r y ,
aef
'l?q

n'c,r!lir':n

-''

:t::::_____i_i__,

(7rh Ci r . 2003); Cook. a02 F -3d a- I111 (allirning
exc.lusion
^ !- . rr - . Y ecaLse opinions
were roL beyond rhe undersLanding of
- hF r
J

lA\,
^ar<^.
')1E-16
tll
h
'rco
.r'ri ond I ly,
^har:riqL
nd
vPs

wh-.le
!rrY

iv)
Ci'

-qqql

deLiberale
F'ee*an

tcr-ln:nn
dillerence

and

n.^.4/l.,rae

^r

'lopkins's
Fallan

tr.lu':r.ic
^ni^:^.
'r,,

thit
'r.

]-1al^w

conducL
i^.1,'al

v
..

n dy
r\r

cilLaTf
^i-

have

eA1
cuicide

v

old!.ed

<r:n.]...lc

criceria
do ror supp-LdnLLhe corsri tuEiona-L inqJi!y.
See BeIcher, 30 F,3d at
naLionaf jail
1399 (sLaLing that
stardards did noL aIIecL
Lhe deliberaEe
'-.1;ff^r6^^6

in^'

i.\r'.

F.iL':r.rc

e.'1

F

2d

at

121a.-1'1

r-iri.-

-haL sLa-e
proposition
lor
aws ano regular-ons.
as wefl
as -nret:nal
d e p a - t m e " r Ep r o c e d - r r e s , d o n o t o r o a d e n _ j a i - o " ' c i d - s '
consti!ur:i onaI oucies).

22

of

The circumsLances
in

jsolaLion
of

And

r P rn s e fL_ /
ur u

likefihood

of

notion

that

concern
suicide.")

. r- r - ]

a

-he

about

i^it

sattirc

no.
have

a

36. )

been

a

are

stronq
1310

herre reiecte.l

Lhe

sadness,
of

of

anger,

imminent
medjcaLion

have

not

af erted

suicide.

box,"

clear

suicide
by

i^iriallrr

r-hcr:ken

"yeS,,

-h:-

Hnnki-s

these

risk.

conments provided

The comments afone,

r-nnarra.'e

The context

ideaci on

qhn'^rc

out,

at

could

I i kel i hood

"pine

direct

suicidaf

fnrm

sr rono

Love had any suicidal

42 at

a
2d

Supp.

likelihood

i . cct .

hyv
v

ovPca!

JLLL-r-9.

made Lhese comments in
whether

indicaLe

F.

"strong

strung

Lhat Love was taking

Love was a suic.ide

that

Ju--

^

f68

viewed

said:

mumbled something
some notice

o

nor

st.rong

fact

urJv!us

anul Hnnl'i .s

When Love

a

-ri cr.\-r.taL ,

-

PryLrrfoL!f!

ErAcmrn

the

Likewise,

.

-

indiCatOrS

such as intoxication,

reflect

viofence

do

li;6:.rr r -

Eleventh

Lhe

circumstances

or

and

HehaViOral

See Holland,

suicide.

. n . : l r r di n o

l ' . C n r r - f< -

in

+h6.^

abnorma-L among detainees

not

2008 inLake

co show che requisite

:^ir:-an

u^L!urrlv+-t

28,

l^lhiIe Love was inLoxicated,

suicide.

el.tremel.,

qrru

April

noL sufficienl

are

likelihood"

Love's

response to
thoughts
is

cruciaf.

Lhreat,

Love,
nexL

or

but

Moreover.
LO the

rritiallrr

suicide.

23

ninth

l-t^,rArrAr

LOVe

question

Hopkins's

of

(See Doc.

intentions.

The comments may not
they
the

did
facc

orreetinn

;nnreciated

suggest
that
on

Love's

-he

some

Hopkins
intake
risk

of

l,lhen Ereeman and
doni

to

l'rei -o

e'l

e r'r-ida'

'an.l

'\No.//18 cenerafly,

h^l-

.{i<n-<ilirTa

i nmate

had

courts

AAq

have

whether the
h:-.n

c

inna

lQaa
\::_:

:rri r:tccl

creeTan

of

suicide.

some risk

and

conments

were not

waS

to

check
t'r'nrrl.l

,and
ulu

aware

other

obvious

sufficientfy

h e r s e - L f,

dispuce

remains

risk

the

j-hc

af

Court

And

what

f;cf

niohr

that

hc661-156

frark

nresanra.l

show that

serious

trust

a l c l u , -n \ / fL , hr i n o
A J
,
y

c.ircumstances
to

of

Lhe

srri r-: dr' " 1

-,ova

lo\/e

LhaL

Nevertheless,
the

harm

Alsn-

\

or

See

which

necessarily

4)

rs

to

i n'^rs n'

a-

ideation

in

substantia]

cannot

"lggz

anqurry.

genuine

feef

f rnm

caSeS

tendency

nan

l4eek

a9-LaLUu

fhal

s ] ] . r . r F s j -s

Love's

Lold

(..In

a

essentially

suicidaf

_wareness

a

jailers

"

of

6aa

denies

Frtrtrrr.tn

sncr:r fir:allv

\ ^ r a e e^y l - r o "m !o l r r
L Lf
v r! r

denial

rhaL

inmate

a-

r.\\rA

an<r.'--

were aware of

Freeman acknowledgedr

F rcc'ra'r

lha

.,.r:'

uniformly

rn'hcn -ha

qe\/q

channad

demonstrated

as

a

Love

errl-r-ior-l-irzo

a,rnn

defendants

e.rcn

up,

Honkirs

rho

al ready
hel d

foffowed

an lnmate's

af

M^rl\^..r^,,6r-r-6

Hopkins

rr'

af

concfudes

of

-^"

Love's

that

intake

Ereeman and Hopkins

t'

cases, courLS have IoLnd LhaL r-rnexplaineo
-n Lvlo pri son suicide
-eco-ds
ja-l
raiseo
IacLLral quesLicns prec.uding
oI
summary
alreracions
j u o g - r e n L . S e e L i n d e r v , W a s h t e n a r ^C n L y . , 1 6 ? F e o . A o o x . 4 - 0 , 4 2 r ( o t h C i r .
/
aIia,
LnaccoLnLed Ior chanoe
2 0 0 6 J ( r e v e r s ' n g s u m m a r y J d o m e n Eb e c a u s e , ' r r e r
'nc'oenL
ja-I
rFoorL "smackfed] of a cove. up" a1d was an
oI
oII-cial's
.,.:r<L'ara.l
/n

at

a^hh

f:.r,,:l
lqR/r

trmes just
Unlike

before
Linden

- i16-

conclude that
{as PIajnLilf
< L
l
r vn- a -u, r a L f1vi c .

c.-.!i^raa-

\/6

n,raet

innl

!
,

r 1,: 1 : l: il a| l: m ^ h i
-: n t

/^anvi

the suicide,
and

F..

Gug.Iie.Lmoni, the
a..l

Thara

Fi-ar

i<

rr^nl,

.<

r-,^

chanqe

in

qF'l

qi,^.

r

arlriF<

in

fha

2.)1
i:i

9)e

I

out).
made to

r,i-)\/

:

Love's

..rc:ctarf

intake
T:-rr,:,.

form
TO

altered
the records
after
Love's
su-icide
no. 54, Lx. 1 ac ?0) nould be enLi-re.Iy

hnL'arrar

Ne_Lhe.

Alae>.dar

whora

r{e:e scratched

Freeman and Hopkins
suggesrs, sea Doc.

1' ^-.

\r

i,,.1^ma.i

^f

r-eenar

ror

tha

Honl,,r<

.hrhda

rh:r

.j i<-r.s-4

hie

dt^., -t^-

.hec<

(See Doc.
out,
mark next to "No" on the ninth question has been scribbled
probably should, be explored
no. 42 at 14.)
This factual
issue coufci, and
further at trial.

2A

r.r,

^,.^-e

r^r1.,

rrr-LL-La-Lry

most,
of

of

Ilkefihood

of

show awareness of

circumstances

these

strong

a

suicide

mere possibility

a

suicide.
next

On the
-r-^--

- . - r - r c^

qur

to

. ? rh ar n
w! sr

six

Hn ^k r
r r v Pn t r i n s

The shower door
and

feet

To\/e 1-o affemnt

srricide.

qf ran.1t h6nc

I i l,elihood

a-

-haf

iha

instrument
T nnlzi

of
na

.t

t-hi

na

attempt,

Hnnkr're

ret

u-1nLi nc

nrcvi

-.''

rrnad

I rr

aware that

rr

nrrq

the

In

height

the

for

sheet was tied

down

uhe jai 1 setring

and

is

Sheer

an

that

obvious

committing

arr-l

suicide

tl"at

an

suicide

waS

Love

aborted

whar

j nt.ake,

when
and

fai.r-minded

attempt

musC

have

HoIland,
. . . l ir a . l -

a

Freeman

a

suicide

Honki ns

personnel

to

he had initiated

r.isk.

fe.'r-rA

25

s

this

have knowLedge that

from

words.

T.\.a,

rrpFman

j-hcir

favorable

d^<l-

^/1rqide-ino

LhaL

1312 ("LWlhere prison

i nhf

was temporarifv

.i ,ri nd

concl ude

nhrrr nrrS

inmaLe care

inmate

to

sufficient

nnnnlrrde

rz

an.l

CelI.

'I

other

that

one

nr-.eaIrarl

^...^..1^

that

Sheer

In

the

reasonahl

Love was a serious

Supp. 2d at
for

albeit

cou.Ld further

cr Ff i r-i a^f

a

the

that

I red-dnwn

in

commit suicide.

I n

suic.ide

lury

event

.r

r-or- rl

i lUrLrl z
J
r'i

Lied

suicide.

Dl.ihfiff

nran:

changed

informaLion

rhis

was clearly

suici de,
:

had

Love

was .Located at

bar

The fact

lnr-af i o- -

sner-i fi r:
JI/!et!te

rhat

which

of

circumstances

and relayed

support

inches,

ten

the

sFw

bar

suppon

che shower door

Ereeman.
of

'.

uro"LoLruo!ry

however,

morninq,

I rr

lvas
been

168 F.

rocnnn<ihla

inmaLe has attempted,
j-.

can

1-:La

crcr-q

JLgIJJLvv!

amount

to

i-.

or

nroteCt

delihrerate

incllffr:ranr-r.

t't

lrlnnl-

inrr

some

support.

a

facts

determine
risk

of

I h .^r^ re r . n r ' q \. /' - r y
.r y tL l

the

sheet

wFq

makeshifr
a^y n q ar r : L v r r
l
L yL . q-

L---^

no.

l-ha

--r-

39 at

-

nhcar

Hnnki

in

cannot

the

suicide

he

no.

cases,

e

r

-

r.]

the

wirh
inma1-F

the

LhaL "Lhe
hiS

OWn

This
of

a

Lhe

wooden

FurLher.

anri

WOU]d

/ q L Ua
a
\ U

u]I]IgU!JJu!}.

Lnere is no jssue of

ro

Of

Ii're

.rnna."ace^r\/

25,29.J

r^,,^
lJ(,vc

44-45. )

rLe

-.t

qLnweri

--1-iral\r

s !
v . n e !F

at

eorinned

E]]Lf!Efy

42 at

r- h .F
r !

Wanted

Ft

fnr

!,F!,
wrry

sufficienr

explained

I i.ke

:l-a:drz

f^
LU

aWa1.eneSS

L^--"-a-

-rrrl- rin

r_v i r! d . 9
r
r

yg

Dep.

r^r:q

r-

1s

that

Hopkins

r'l, ,rn

l \/

r shaz"l n-irrar-rz

other

bar

(Hopkins

cf:ll

Doc.

T^va

Court

i^n

crrhiogli

r.LLL-Lc:

-^.^^r^iar

varl

While

che

avnl:n^t

Iaw.

curtain."

5;

835)).1e

were unaware of

/rl-har

nc'c

of

na-fA-j-

chnl^rer

3,

n/1

a matter

ec1-ah-

t" UnIike
LI^n1in<

as

rakcq

whr.h

finding,

shower door

the

hano, no

ion

ie

and

shower

inni4en-

clnor-

to

rrFFnAl

risk

sujcide

at

F.2d

1aw.2o

l-hora

sheet

r r- l i s| ,n r n r . e r
s
r !
v
v

c o n Lr a r y

Freeman and Hopkins

that

as a matter

tied

89r

DOC.

Hopkins's

E e F L p o r a lr e m o L e n e s s h e r e .

er..r''ar

d^.r

s

'nn^?!

vI

JUDL

Nol a-re Lhere a.ly facts sLggesLing LhaL
nor-rs belore Love's acLual suicide.
tnas noE genulne.
Love had no hi story
of
Love's abo-Led s ,jc-de
atIenpr
feigned suicidal
behaviors.
t- lwo Iac-s do supporc Freenan ard Hopkins's argJmFnL EhaE they L^Jere
.lot subjecEive.v aware oI a high risk oI suicide.
F i r s E , F r e e n a n \ , n a su n a L r a r e
sL-nLS aL Lhe CDoS jajl.
oI any suic-dal
behaviors by Love during his prior
bar r'vhen
Second, Love had removed the sheet from the shower Coor support
H6nkins refrrrnF.l 1-o the ceLf fess than a minute after
he observed the
jncide-E,
c a n h a - d l y b e d - i s p o s ic i v e o f t h e
Whi e -e evanr,
theso facts
inquiry
evidence that Freeman and
subjective
because (1) there is sufficient
c.n- r^.c h -itv
rfui-<
1,trr6 ^'--'-1,,
ol _ove.s Suic-ide based on
whar rhey observed at rhe inLake on Lhe p.rev-ous oay, and (2) Iove's L-e-do".rn
for sulcidc,
especial.ly
o- t.)e sceet car oe viewcd as obvious oreoararion
t^A^>.-ca

the incident,

i-.r

F^-1,;-c

1c

rrf

;drrar-a

Fr\r

^-f6.

.-F^:t^t-

cwnr

rr>-j96

qf

as discus.sed infra.

o: course, ir -erains ope"r ro cree"an and Hopk-rs "lo prove rhar Lhey
to inmate health
or safety"
at trial.
were unallare even of an obvious risk
knowledge from the
of fact may infer
Farm'er, 511 U.s. at 844. "That a trier
Id.
obvious, in other \..rords, dces not mean that it musl do so."

26

deposition
*didn'l-

.annFa-

statement

to

"observed

fo

that

e |uy|Jv! / 1 r t
nn
11

rh^1.fh-

I

e

ad-io.l\

J

ie|

or

r
! fi \ l rn h r
rL

rhe

./

lL rh a r a ,
_ rs!E

--

nan

cninida

^

around

the

n^^ .
ucP

suicide

that

recal.led

that

H o p ki n s

he took

to

under

t.he mattress

However,
YuLrLfv

i n n r halu f L
o

(Id.

at

I inhl-

"if

the
an

that's

curtain
attempr

support
him

Freeman

aff

the underfying

At

bar.

that

Love

tied

the

deposition,

his

had

he

L o v e \ , , , a s" m a k i n g
'trucked"

upper bunk for

privacy.

would not

a

tent, "

the

sheet

(See Freeman

have been out

of

31-32. )
recoflection

Freeman's
fi rn
r

aware that

"Making a tent"

29-3I ,38.)

the ordinary.

d,racr-

on the

he

obvious.

mean thatr J-ove had mereIy

which

Dep. at

Lold

what

explanation,

aware of

risk

he was not

shawer door

me,

not

cj-aj-cd,

r-:'.di.l1rr

42

Love's

for

he was tying
to

nO.

Freeman does

explanation

Hopkins's

made Love's

the

DOC.

With

?, .f 1 . \
/

rL
of

facts

to

shower door

hp

rod,

he

44-45

that

he was not

sheer

that

around the

)r-

:ftarrnl

the time

and

earlier

when Freeman was asked

contends that

Freeman asserts

his

he refated

Hopkins.

essentially
that

which

h\/

curtain"

advanclng

of

-iFd

shower

/ E l r- a a li n -L- d r r
ue L
\!

Instead

in

Unflke

and at

sheet

cnnf-arli

"hanging"

Indeed,

aS

somebody wafked in
--

lrr

a bed sheet

\

incident.

aurqr! r: !-f 'v f
Y
v

f laf

H.r.Linc

/e omr.ara
\::jj]E:j-:

was merely

sheet

GBI i-nvestisator,

"makeshift

sheet-tvinq

is

Love had tied

l u Lmy nuh : c i
o " " J
\

ad.vance the

f iecl"

he

the

/,

l-.\r
a

J

the

thar

testimony

af

Freeman's own GBI statement,

^fhar

of

this

f:.1-a

Hopkins notified

21

event

F irqt

i <

>nnnrdi

him that

hi

nhl

rr

n^

Love t'was

a

tyinq

sheet

bed

(emphasis added) ) .

Afthough
wqJ c
!v

f{nnkinq

rrvyr:r"r

r -^

r F a F r r r .Ld4 r r Y

!!!vt

arrr\n^rt

h:

lunch.

he

<hr,we'r

r'l:lnr

-

at

baf

/n^.-

IHopkins]

.

1Z

.at

F-rcFmAn ar:knowl er'lcrecl
that

he was aware that

srrir-idc h\/ rvrr.:

Lo eirher

or

a sheet

the bunk beds.
that

Given
I J n n l . ir nLc , c
' r

.a^.-orrnl s

lrvv^

racha-t
-_,J

ctll(l

i vA

_:^-r

rlannc i I i 4ng

€i ^_--

5L9rlLIIUdrlL

chat

should

ori
ll ti v r h L -

-ha

rtr

mLo u rtL
L , c

be

LcILL

chpat -i\/i

and

ua-L

-.,^^r:

by

e

-r'

Dlainfiff-

"

i r" r lr v
J ,

had

Ereeman and

Hopkins

knew that

Love

door

support

bar .

described

shower

As

28

Addi

aS
there

Viewing
a

the

informed

ri

r-gg+'+v'rof

o n a l 1 J ,r
I r

coul-d commit
supporu bar

Freeman

in

^rcdilril

jury.

a

to

12.)

37-38,

nr-r i ncidenC

--r

prior

he

inmates

intelviews,

^-^

9uE-Lru

addressed

farroraLrl

GBI

shows:

around

sheet

- J

lnconsistencies

are

there

shower door

shower door

the

(See Freeman Dep. at

the

that

added\

\ClLlPlrdD-Lr

find

have Love remove the

to

^

5-L

bed

iS

could

interview

advised

and was told

this

there

morning,

the
a

bed,

to

GBI

in

he thought

a jury

which

tied

36

IHopkins]

that

bunk

was tied

time

at

(Freeman Dep. aL 32,

Honk inS'S

one

42

chac would have been

relates

from

Love had

that

qtlnr-,rl

rz-

"if

T.nve'S

bed sheet

that

observed

'/

ch661-

nn

the

Freeman about

Sergeant

} ^ , :r

record

cnar-r 'i ^:l

r

refated

"Hopkins

l-ha

no .

that

ordinary."

on the

Freeman was told

that

the

Doc.

testified

Ereeman's GBI statement

evidence

sufficient

of

(See

co a bar,

something

was out

someching rhat
12.)

Ereeman later

tying

would have said

bar . ' "

'the

to

i-v

in

are

their

numerous

de1-e-rinations

the

r-a'r'l ''l

tied

f ound

and

a

supra,

facLS
f in'l

i-L:i-

sheet
a

in

j ury

to

the
both

the
cou.Id

reasonahlv
.r

l.rrr

PrJr-

at

inrake.

reasonably

'nr-i

in^

lha

denf

46q

^ ^ ^
r
c-a^s e s T

were

oerendants
i.rnrnncr

the

nave

su rJ ssnLF ur : l - F . l
J
u v L
f L:1-

LF

other
nqf

ri

:<

t.'

ci- ..n/rl

words,
r-h

to

Ereeman
and

recent

to

rrlle

whether

q,,nrama

843 n.8;
r,onkinn
end

Hnnkrn<

Hankinq

j-ha

nf

all

irral,T onf
m

avnl:i

if

-^

^^^-ih^^

pxist./'

fo

whan

l-he

would

it

^s

See

nrrhl jgl6d

th:t-

A

were

tr

v.

tha
:

rpfrrqed

na.l

the

Srrnn

raAffeI.

aware

be
Of

of

not

irrrv
f.\

29

r:orr-rJ
rrer'i frr

showIs]

that

he

U.S.

at

843

Of

riSk
.'In

n.B.

re\.nard those
AA\

thar

slrongly

infefenCeS

?r1 ar

of

F:rmor

evidence

^-\nfirm

Duckworth,

tn-alirv

in

facts

511

does

AGq

McGiff
;rt

were

Suicide.

attempts,

underlying

Constltution
l-a

of

defendants

a/rrrrl-

verify
^r

Hnnk ins

harm.")

rr crrqner-f ed

the

/'1r

in.l.'rmFnt

'l'h,re

...'----- I ury

r/1rrn.l

suicide

Love's

f:ir-mindad

ancl

nol-r

rha

cou.Ld

nr^ry-occ

:

/\\-r

6?R

escape liability

M-rnh-rrrnrraf

"

1991)).

Freeman

ha

:f

jury

a

knew that

Iikalihood

ra-r'ewod-

serious

| ha

refused

511 U. S. at
Cir.

of

^n.a<

Of

a!{ar

r^rha- i-r:nspi16d

in

Freemar

sfrono

of

Hopkins

-ir-rlm<l-

?d

nf

view,

this

atte-^'

rhat

qrrrr'r^r\/

may *nor

he merely

fha

Slnr\

F

j de

^"^fe

y

ber-:rrse

under

SUiC

a

question

tr,,rr- har

official

of

a w ar e

rlsk

substantiaf

a

.'f

L-

| /_\ /-r-:nt

]aw

SuiCidaf

conclude

A r , , ,r a
F

Mnyhn tr.rlFl- f a.
- 1 1 ^
a- p^ p e r _ arr^ e

\7

H u l J ^k ri r r
rr nn l

Freeman and

waS

ol v

qrrhia.i- i\7a- \/

on

thar

l-nr-:lif

r r ' l- r n a f

was

arnsc l
u r

Operaring

conclude

v i no

r-nrrl -l

--ove

-'-'

L ! Ly

Love's

shctrr-t

t ha1- F-ee'ran

in !
r r r lfre r

r

who play

/,^i l- inn

F-^

944 F.2d 344, 351 (7th
-he

.ir.|mstances

reaqnnahl

\/

rrndarl r.'ina

known

infe.f
f :.i-a

that

rega rding

conf i -rm inferences
c f r . n . r ' l r z c r rq n e r - f e d

ro

be

of

rhat

a substantial

of

find

that

consLj tute
F. 3d at

Freernen

nrderino

T,nrre to

f r.rr

not

nrinin:-

Cir.

ra:

rrr:ra

ennrhl

a

sheet

T orre

to

rr

to

as

349

'/
I

sheet

nor

resume

469
I

r-F,'.- i6ri

sheet.

intention

of

shower

the

from

the

door

the

Freeman

and

have

been

ab.Ie to

SimpIy

suicide

F.

2d

Supp.

qhan,r.i

32L

Hopkins
wa-it

" The

aLtempt.

liabIe

officials

Mnmhnrrr/ruette/

down

his

h / o u fd

hold

shower door

absolve

to

itself

to

r-ij- ir.r

with

the

in

the

take

cell

Love

does

to

when they

at

646
F.3d

do

(emphas is

onfy

rn

616,

622

(7Lh

2003)) .

had

Love

when Hopkins

afready

returned

not

contact

dwdy

medicaf

to

the

down Lhe sheet.

taken

Freeman and Hopkins did

taken.

Ldr\E

nntt l cl

tr

See Coleman,

risk,

the

le'r

Moreover/

did

i trol

ir"cl'f ferent

to

qince

Honkrrs

j h^

e,,l-\ i a/-f

i, rrrr

and remove

suIficient

Consritution
-^ih

r

the

felI

returned

rrnf ie

IiehiIifrr

rrnt il

t.'

lL-v o l v l rHv oJnr lr r, j r c
c
r y r
r

l-h^]. Honkins

js

urora

rla

tying

Love was observed

Thtr f^.1-

bar

they

538-39.

After
har-

Lhat

Risk

srr"ir-ien*lv

of

d isreqard

reckless

crr i ni

was

response

their

l-lnnlzinc

Love's

of

S1d'icide

tbe

Freeman and

risk

risk

suicide

t rue.

2. ReckTess Disregard
A s s r r mn n
i

Love's

or

no

not place

mental

health

qhae*

anrl

orher

:
I Lace

Love

in

30

cell

further

action

Love on suicide
professionals,'

ooLential
H
an

and found that

isofated

was

watchi
did

not

instrumenLs

of

celf;

did

not

increase

observation

their

the

why he had ried
and

not

d id

t r su - FL-rfo f
Lor s -

\,
i A l fI y r -

h imse I f

h:-ncri

FrcA'n^r

the

-.

rar.l

risk

f Ake

(reversing
have

grant
of

known

observation

a hospltaf);
nof

Cagfe,

rle-'he-atelv

decainee's
assisc

had

"ce.Il

nn-kot- -.niFnt s) ;

ceff

trying

was

to

a

Fcd

attach

rhrear

administrative

Lo

LOVe

and

989-90

hang

al
Lo

not

'rinimlZe

I2l0
may

increase

ceff

could

that

rerurn

(jai1

her to
was

official
Lhe

implements

and

fjve

minutes,

laf ler

shoelaces,

1401 (jailer

jailers

where

he

incer

ntreerrr'n.r

and

concluding

placed
was

the

might

that

beIL,

1393-94,

detainee

because he moved detainee

stajrwell

31

were

offtcial

or

sheets,

the

at

television,

30 F.3d at

himself,

segregation

of

764-65
a

i,_\

observed

circuit

detainee's

indi fference

sheet

he

strj pped

BeIcher.

the

of

they

E.3d

did

from

because

aII

jail

984,

cLosed

been

Annx
a

where

detainee,

and checked on him every
?n?

F".),^,1or

l.o'rrs -

take

420

the

isolate

such as the

suicide,"

log,

c_Fnq

Snow,

remove items

via

-re

risk

suicide

indifferent

w.c -nt- .lel ilrerarelv
bare

Cf.

334 E.3d ar

ni n 'f 65

f i ft-can

:nd

strong

harm oneself,

be used to

j ai-L

However,

q/-\mF nra\/ani^t;

surnmary judgment

detalnee,

of

bar;

the

Lo

1iabllity.

suicide.

of

support

uv-un r r n l e
L
P

q
e

reotti -ed

n.1T

avoid

lFAet

Love's

of

in

"r -hi n

were

to

aj-

shower door

Love as to

sheer .

Honkins

actions

question

not

incident

the

rruLrr-Lrrg

wr l-h the

and

above-listed
-aorrt

record

. l- 'L r
u

did

down on the

sheet

even
tLh re v) i
- u.

Love;

of

to

a

alia);
n-r i s o n e r
r thaL

prisoner
checked

he

in
more

f ronrronr

L.

I rr\

f J a _ -e - ' r e
L iU " r_

in

M^mh^,

f:i

rrrF

combination

r r / " r ,r a l - | a

T-

with

LdJ|s

her

l.6q

awdy

qrrnn

F

to

^r

646-41

* ^, t r1 s ovL ) ive c r s
\
u
v JU eJ

\rolrYsr

faifure

)d

f ,m
r rrvo "

many other

take

Lhat summary judgment is

appropriaLe.")

Given that

Love vTas seen preparing

to

had

As

nar!'=rq

fhF

Honk.ns's

arrl

ch66r

failrtr^

l-^

.i_ei I
Jurr

nff

in

\.di

nrn rr v

i ci:l

d

she could

use Lo hurt

does

Lake

not

person

with
,

days earlier.""
rrr
Hnnkr

su

nq

u|lcrryI

h:d

in

€ar-f ,r>

including

the

SheetS.

tO

"mosc relevant.r"
€f

-^t,

^ tu- jrc t^ { -D
^ -L ^
u

bed sheets.

mental

health

to

any

period

Lo kill

r r o u f rz
y

J urJ
rro

l . n n r ^ r lc . l r r c

To find
of

FTeeman

h t r i ^r -r iL
Ptaf

fL !r w mL '
^r

d

q11ljp,--i

risk

waS

aCCeSS

using

It

rea.Lize
of

herself

rhat

time
only

a

with
a

few

646.

the

the

S

469 E. Supp. 2d at

commit suicide

to

.

suicide

a],one for

- [ e ft

Love would
risk.

a r ^ rt a r r
u*u

she had tried

which

,.17

tL qrA U
:l a

hersel [,

be

r ^r'6f

I

inaCtiOn

f ir-ant

:r.r:"

n a
p rlu - li n t i f f

conmit

Mombourquette found

experL

not

should

macerjals

an

sioni

-:1za

court

Lhe district

rL ra r
h -

rr..)qf

rran

measures,

cannot conclude

.

/"r:i

Lhat

and that
they

self-harm.

. . J1 r.esnJr, r . a c
ur l u !

nal,a

nf

the

-rar-?ihi

they

l- h:l-

recklessfy

woufd

,.Jet.a-mr n:f

E raar,r.an

I il.alihnnd

de]iberately

Court
Iit'z

qj-r^n.r

r

were not

r f nrru
!i r t

have
i.rq

and
rhat

disregarded
indifferent
to

resolve
:nd

dfaW

21 For a more extensive
version
of the facts,
see Fo!.iler v. chattooqa
Cnty., Ga.. No, 4:07-cv-145, at *14 (N.D. Ga. Apr. 25, 2008).
22 The Mombcurquette court also found that removal of items that
can be
used to facilitate
the removaL of sheets - is a
suicide - and specifically
-^mm^n j-rr
^,1^+i^6
.,hich has been noted in nrjmerous court decisions.
see
169 F. supp. 2d aL 646; see/ e.q.,
colenan, 349 F.3d aL 53q (hoId;no EhaE
j l r y c o u l d - e a s o n a o r y d o o L c e L h a L a p p e l l a n L s r e c k . L e s s - L yo i s . r e g a r d a d a k n o w r
sric-de
risk L.hen El^ey issued detainee a bed shoef and placed hirn in a ceII
--.,

^^,,1.1

^^r

6rci

li,

^l^.ca?r,a

him\

32

adverse to

inferences
LLrrs

r.rr..r ^

SLCIgE.

'q

,-l.rin

oenrlinel

f.

qrnn.\rfino

failure

and

orral if

:F.l

is

(11th

(parties

432

defense was raised
defense
Fehfhaber

v.

fai.Lure
it

to

in

:ululro<<i

nn

raise

nrr.al

tria-1

.

it

if

iod

in

in

bury

- * r - l, . r r n e n t .
eY
J

I

lssues

in

answer,

11)

Barker

the

pleadj ngs

v.

Goodrich,

(althor.tgh sovereign

F.2d

s u r n mr y
a

analyze

281 Fed. Appx. 184, 190

fail-ure

defendant's

102

not

the Answer (doc. no.

sunxnary judgment

for

issue

the

<rrrrarrz

frr

and

Due Lo che

CourL wiII

Nicholson,

answer,

in

58, 62.)

36,

the

20f1)

Cir.

was raised

a.Iso irrelevant

is

1983

Section

address -

alone

t-he nor i.'r'

may not

Fehlhaber,

(aLthough issue

leL

sumnary judgment);

(6rh

motion

in

resnlviro

them after

428,

649 tr.3d

-

here,

See Hofder v.

and resurrecr

Lo

and

s u n r m a r y ' ju d g m e n t

for

defense was raised

2008)

Cir.

n-.ceed

motion

Lhe issue
in

the

irrelevant.

EraF.rAn

find

Pfaintiff's

(See Doc. nos,

immunity.23

that

The fact

mrrsf

rlo not nention

immunilv

YuattllEu

na-s'rasirre-

Hopkins's

presenL

to

.-r_]1:tF1v

at

Innunity

hr'cfs

qualified

l-'.

which are prohibited

of

Issues

7. Qualified
Freeman

aff

rtroy

July

di qnrrf ecl and

v

C. Miscellaneous

of

d

ar.lnrra'ri- q

Hnnkrne'c

-

Plaintiff

waived

assert

the

jssue);

the

(5th

84

81,

to

immuniLy

Cir.

1983)

was deemed abandoned by

it

judgment briefs).

Without

more,

LhaL Freeman and Hopkins have ciLed

cases

imm,,ni

See

f \/

23

of
llnmunity
is
Qualified
ind.ifference
merits
of Plaintiff's
def iberate
F e d . A p p x . 3 2 1, 3 3 5 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 )

33

v.

U.S.

^l

rr.l

c.Laim.

Kafleur.

I rr

168

distinct"
from
Cook v, Martin,

Fed.

the
148

(11th

Appx.

322,

cases

referencing

i ee'ra

321

-ha

an.l

nl-r'l i artcd

raise

l-n

Cir.

an

:
.,1 .f

issue,

riCt

rzldrocc

a defense

it

COUrt

l-ho

thar

(while

20A6)

did
and

defendant

not

In

iccrral

short,

Freeman and Fonki rs

nart

}Ju!

the

lherrcel

several

present"

"clearlv

/-\nnoq in/-r
Y

Lhe

cited

\,

\.,are

L)'

Court
rrec

the
not

wil-1 not

.leclined

CO

raise.
2. State
For

Law Claias
reasons,

simifar

F-aanan

H.rnki -.

:rrJ

predicated

"for

,

mofion

the

address

^^

lL_ hLa
rr

\Jrr

of

of

58,

CurrenLly

Defendants

Rules.

in

Lhe

qrrnnnrrina

ne

for

i r9, r
d r ^ ur r n e n L S

Freeman and
hriafc

1983 cfaim.

nnlrr

They do

(See Doc, nos.

aL aff.
stare

H^nLi

motion

. h6i _
_rrEr!

J Jyr-v!

section

the

:nu l

However,

-rd

law claims

and che Georgia

F raam:n

arrs

of

Five

law cfaims

shaff

.a1

3. Violation

Local

staLute

2. )

:a:in<l.

Freeman and Hopkins

-a<ar'A.l

e .-. .u, ]
e

uncontested,

r-l:im<

Count

claims

13 at

Pfaintiff's

36,

f ,.\ | ri

Iaw

J u!_r9rL'srrL

address rhe pending state

nrnnacr'l

againsL

169-92. )

n tl L oe rt - l i9 J n r - r s
y e u rr

nol

62.)

q$

law

trial.

a Georgia

stare

for

merits

f ^

cfaims

(Doc. no.

day. "

another

Honkinsts

pendinq

the

J uug'IsuL

L_Ldr

asserls

(See Compl.

acknowledged

state

hr^^a6.l

upon vio.Lations

Constitution.

Pdr

m.-c1-

Complaint

Plaintiff's

Pfaintiff's

Local

of
contend

First,

Pfaintiff's

response

g.round that

PlaintifI

that

Rales
Plaintiff

has

Defendants object
to

Defendants'

has violaced

viofated

the

to arguments set
statement

of

facts

Court, s

forth

in

on

the

t.he page number fimirations

7.1 (a) .

Loca-L RuIe

by

estabfished

(Doc.

Second, Defendancs objecr- Lhat. P-Laintif f

(Id.

7.1(b) .

certificate

of

7,1(a) ,

nFcF.dFnis

nv^ i ^ fr r.er l
I/ r

respond to

response
>rn'rn^

ro

rL hr a
r g

r-'-r afina

the
n.ana

IJqYs

r-c

I imir:f

tl^/1'din^

improperly

D:n^ora

Rule

legaI
56.I,

20II

of

Ru.Le
facts

And as
not

Given

motion

Lhe

onlv

respond to

to

brief.

for
no.

doc.

that

summary

arguments

54),

in

the

end-run

l-he

qrmmarv

irclrrnarf

v.

Pandora

Jew6 l r\?
:ji-i1

Inc.

lenal

page

+4 (S.D.

Fla.

aro rmcnts

I imitation

in

for

tlay 12,
exhibiLs

a

sunrmary

.

response to

arguments.
whjch

fo

shalf

of

an inappropriate

is

WL 1807676, at

the

bur

legal

i r e- v,l a h l e
v
e

nf

cr

hri

54-1. )

(see

nafles

1995,

:n^lrr<ir'\n

lh^f

brief)

Plainciff's

: n yn rl
sl' r

Jewelers

:-:ilL

circumvented

judgment reply

with

iI n nJ q
vI

Rufe

document

Defendants'

facts

scaLement of

LLC, No. 09-61490-CIv,
2n-'\

facts,

extensive

of

inclusion

Pfaintiff's

Locaf

of

n.\

no.

of

t-qlan1-v-ci x

itself

is

-Legal

statement

this

response to

in

to

S.D. Ga. Local

rrliIizes

statement

n. 1 . )

inclusive

surnmary j udgment

for

motion
brief

length,

(See Doc.

Plain-i'f

Defendants'

Pl-a.intif f 's

l^.orrr--

bv LR 5.1."

limitation.

1

1.)

the

in

at

cice

does not

response Lo Defendants'

vee

Defendants'

i r.lcrrrFnf

pages

required

service

page

this

of

58

viofation

in

62 at

ssi on

(26)

Plaintiff's

exceeds

Doc. no.

nernt

n r t r v !o r

y'

Lwenty-s ix

exceed

record

factual

4 n.2;

at

"Ahcanr

to

the

or

authoriti-es

no.

This

allows

the
is
a

statement
itself

facts

inappropriate

t'separate,
35

of

short.

is

saturated

under Locaf
and

concise"

statement
Rule

Local

material

of

^r..lr na-r

-

Cj-ty of

rr

.lncq

Lhe "purpose

R^tq.n-

evidence

D'Antignac

Doc. no.

Hofdings,
2008)

No.

Mr,

supporting

al

frustrated

this

Local
support

Ga.
law"

r.rhi4l

ig

Reno

V.

See

*1

WL 23684A9, at

(N.D.

rul e and sLaL ing Lhat

statements

observes

v.

that

is

identify

the

materia-L facts.

the

to

nor

Plaintiff's

Deere & Co.,

201,2); Harris

rr

counsel,

i.
. n.r-l-n r _r-d L E l r
-\,

wrLlr

?,1 (b)

20II);

Lo

factual

every

record.

It
See

also

S.D.

Defendants

that

Pfaintiff

asserti-ons

with

citations

Ga.

Hegre v.

statements

assertion

with

L.R.

.

7.1(b)
failed

7, 1-L-L2, 15-16. )

35

of

h:rra

fact,

aff

q f r prn i f
ou . L

r-onqi

l \y
/

record.

citation

to

supporting

The

to

and briefs

a

ciLaEion

the

Beauty

Ga. June 30,

responsesf

requires

to

Doc. no.

resources.

motions,

has

caSeS,

Safly

(S.D.

28

-'--nrmcnf
dr!ur,turrL,

-LE9d-L

requires

l:lO-cv-116,

No.

Doc. no.

responses

other

Mr.

FPL Food, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-

Court and wasted its

Rule

authorities.

v.

1:07-cv-161,

Batson's

inennrnnri.el-

54 at

briefs.

analogous

(S.D. Ga. Feb. 7,

75

Inc.,

factual

errrlrmant

has s'nr lar- rz vi ol arerl rhpse T,ocaf Rules in

64 (S.D. Ga. May 4,

to

2AI2

of

"conclusions

larr:l

irrdnmarll

56.1

Rule

further

Court

See. e.9.,

166,

q!rnmpr\/

See S.D.

or -Lega-L rguments'/).
a

to make factual
The

alfows

1- Fyl- Fnqirre

10-cv-6114,

Local

admjss jb]e

relevant

Rule

(discussing

20L2)
of

n6rni

f ar

No.

Chicago,

and response thereto.

Local

nr'\-

roqarvo.l

June 21,

IlI.

This

56.1-.

l - i r r l - , ^ 6 rL - r^u i n lL r' rrr l

facts

C.'r--

support
rqaa
\\Jwr

!.Y./

to

legaI

aorccs

al I

the

wi r-l

facLual
n^^

Defendants'
consider

with

the Court's

and

susLained,

filings

Plaintiff's

only

are

objecrions

to

the

extent

See Bagwell v.

Locaf Rules.'4

the
that

traF,

rr]anrrinn

mnrinn

materiaf

fact

or

responses

requir€ments

of

LR 56.L")

*5

No. 2:08-cv-191 , 2AI1 WL 1497831' at

tn11\

of

statements
compfv with
hFreh\/

nofifies

and

RuIes

Local

these
^
- ri .- r r r

the

narcnn:ll'r
IrL

For

the

reasons

summary judgment
for

leave

MOOT.

This

to

fife
case

set

(doc.

no.

ORDER ENTERED at

h
r . ifq J

(N.D. Ga.

"r] lqreaer'-l

thereto

further
to

any

final

that

trrrr1-har

Iedd

comply

do

tha

a^rrr1-

violations

sanctions

lr r- r*J r r u v l r P i l a r r L

of

dgdinst

F:Ir--^
r rtf
I'v-.

forth

above,

36)

n-anood

is

DENIED.
(doc.

brief
l-^

AUqUSra,

t- ri:

motion

Defendants'

no.

59)

is

DENIED As

l

UeOrg r a,

rnfs

--' r(V

STATES DISTR]CT .]UDGE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2a Disregarding
these mat eri al s
Lor sLmmary judgnenL.
rhe rotion

for

motion

Plaintj-ff's

2013 .

of

not

CONCI"USION

a sur-repfy
wiff

hrrl-

that

mdy

, k i -nr a . ,
N -

IV.

kp

Batson

qfr

i<

qj-ri

cases

oLher

:r
w
oq , r a l l s

y.

Mr.

warns

in

rn

they

Peachtree Doors &

Windows, Inc.,
A

wiII

Court