Christensen v. Salt Lake Cnty.

510 P.3d 299

Spencer CHRISTENSEN, Appellant,

v.SALT LAKE COUNTY, Wellcon Inc., James Winder, and Todd Wilcox, Appellees.

No. 20200220-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed April 14, 2022

Robert B. Sykes, C. Peter Sorensen, Salt Lake City, and Christina D. Isom, Attorneys for Appellant

Simarjit S. Gill, Jacque M. Ramos, Sandy, and Timothy A. Bodily, Attorneys for Appellees

Judge Jill M. Pohlman authored this Opinion, in which Judges David N. Mortensen and Diana Hagen concurred.

Opinion

POHLMAN, Judge:

¶1 Spencer Christensen's daughter, Casie Christensen, was held in custody at the Salt Lake County Metro Jail while she was withdrawing from opiates. After about forty-eight hours in custody, Casie¹ died by suicide. Alleging that Casie was not provided adequate medical care and supervision, Spencer brought a federal claim for cruel and unusual punishment and a state law claim for wrongful death against Salt Lake County and others in federal district court. After the federal court granted judgment in favor of the defendants in that case, Spencer filed the current lawsuit in state court against Salt Lake County and others, bringing claims under the state constitution for unnecessary rigor and lack of due process. The state district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Spencer now appeals that decision, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND²

¶2 On January 8, 2014, law enforcement arrested Casie on charges related to shoplifting. During a medical examination before being booked into the Salt Lake County Metro Jail, Casie reported that she had used heroin and cocaine that same day. After the examination, Casie was placed in a holding cell, and the jail began to monitor her for symptoms of withdrawal. Casie was also assessed for suicidal ideation, but even after she began experiencing withdrawal symptoms, Casie repeatedly denied any suicidal or self-harm thoughts. But on January 10, 2014, Casie died by suicide. We will discuss the undisputed facts surrounding these events in further detail below.

The Federal Lawsuit

¶3 Casie's father, Spencer, commenced a lawsuit in federal district court against Salt Lake County, the Unified Police Department, and others. Based on his allegations that Casie was not provided adequate medical care and supervision, Spencer asserted a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment under federal law and a cause of action for wrongful death under state law. It is undisputed that in the federal lawsuit, Spencer did not assert a cause of action for unnecessary rigor in violation of Article I, Section 9 of the Utah Constitution or a cause of action for a denial of due process in violation of Article I, Section 7 of the Utah Constitution.

¶4 After discovery was completed, the defendants in the federal lawsuit moved for summary judgment, arguing that the undisputed facts did not support Spencer's claims. Spencer responded by asserting that he did not intend to oppose the defendants’ motion "for a host of reasons." Spencer specifically requested, however, that the federal court's order "be narrowly tailored so as not to ‘dismiss all claims,’ but only those claims or causes of action raised in [his federal] Complaint." Spencer explained, "For example, the Complaint did not allege a cause of action for any matters involving state civil rights violations, such as Article I, Sec. 9, or subjecting prisoners to unnecessary rigor. Such matters are still within the statute of limitations and may yet be filed in state court."

¶5 Thereafter, the federal district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. The court's order specified that Spencer's action was dismissed "with prejudice only as to the exact claims brought in the Complaint at issue and addressed in the summary-judgment motion."

The Present Lawsuit in State Court

¶6 Spencer then filed the present action in state court against Salt Lake County; Wellcon Inc., which contracted to provide medical services at the jail; Todd Wilcox, the responsible physician at the jail; and James Winder, the county sheriff (collectively, the County Defendants). In this lawsuit, Spencer asserted, for the first time, claims for unnecessary rigor and denial of due process in violation of the Utah Constitution.

¶7 The County Defendants eventually moved for summary judgment on the state constitutional claims. They sought judgment "on the grounds that the undisputed material facts alleged in the complaint and the undisputed material facts as established in the Federal Action preclude [Spencer's] state constitutional violations as a matter of law." (Cleaned up.) In other words, the County Defendants argued that "applying ... those same undisputed facts to state constitutional law precludes [the] claims asserted in the state court action." Indeed, they asserted that, as was "litigated and adjudicated" in the federal lawsuit, Casie had received appropriate medical treatment while incarcerated and that the County Defendants had employed proper protocols to assess her mental health status. The County Defendants thus contended that the "adjudicated facts the court found material and without dispute in the prior Federal Action are dispositive to [Spencer's] ‘unnecessary rigor’ and due process claims" and that "on those adjudicated facts, [the] state constitutional claims against the County Defendants fail as a matter of law."

¶8 In support of their motion, the County Defendants included a lengthy statement of material facts. These facts mirrored, nearly verbatim, those contained in the defendants’ summary judgment motion in the federal lawsuit. Importantly, in opposing summary judgment in the present case, Spencer contested only two facts. See infra ¶ 32. Consequently, the district court later determined that all but those two facts were deemed admitted under rule 56(a)(4) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.³

¶9 Still, Spencer insisted that he could bring his state constitutional claims because he never raised the claims in federal court and the federal court "said nothing about whether th[e] facts support a state civil rights claim." He also stressed that the legal standards governing his state constitutional claims differed from the standards governing the claims he had raised in federal court. He further claimed that despite his admissions, questions of fact existed as to whether Casie was subjected to unnecessary rigor and deprived of due process when, in his view, the County Defendants failed to properly assess and treat Casie for opiate withdrawal.

The Facts

¶10 We now set forth the detailed facts of this case that are undisputed, unless otherwise indicated.

¶11 Wednesday . In the late afternoon of January 8, 2014, Casie was taken into police custody, and afterward, she "acted as if she was having a seizure." She was taken to the hospital for evaluation, and while there, she reported that she had recently been raped and held against her will. After, a physician medically cleared Casie for transport to jail. When she arrived at jail, she underwent a nursing pre-screen examination—a routine procedure to obtain an overview of an inmate's health.

¶12 During this examination at 10:06 p.m., Casie reported a history of anxiety and depression for which she had been prescribed medication; she also reported that she had used heroin and cocaine earlier that day. Casie's vital signs were deemed to be in the normal range, and she appeared alert, calm, and appropriately oriented to the situation. Because of her recent drug use, Casie was placed in a holding cell in the screening area of the jail at approximately 10:35 p.m. The nursing staff also began to assess Casie for withdrawal symptoms from drugs at 11:23 p.m.

¶13 Thursday . Casie was assessed again at 1:17 a.m., 3:08 a.m., and 5:00 a.m. on January 9, 2014. Within this same time period, officers also checked on Casie four additional times and saw no concerning behavior. During the nursing assessments, Casie had a slightly elevated heart rate, which the parties agree is not uncommon for individuals withdrawing from drugs or alcohol, but her vital signs were otherwise within the normal range. Based on these evaluations, Casie was encouraged to drink Gatorade to stay hydrated, and she was ultimately cleared for booking into the jail around 5:00 a.m.

¶14 Under the protocol used at the jail to assess an inmate's symptoms of withdrawal, medical personnel are trained to track a variety of withdrawal symptoms, such as nausea, sweating, anxiety, headaches, and hallucinations. Each symptom is assigned a score ranging from zero to seven, and the numbers are added up as an inmate's total score, known as a CIWA score. Generally, medical intervention is initiated once an inmate's total score reaches twelve. Medical professionals at the jail are also trained to monitor inmates’ vital signs for withdrawal symptoms and to evaluate whether inmates experiencing withdrawal have any suicidal or self-harm thoughts.

¶15 At 10:00 a.m., a nurse recorded Casie's CIWA score as one, with one point assessed for mild nausea with no vomiting. At this time, Casie's vital signs were within normal range, and Casie denied having suicidal or self-harm thoughts, as noted on her withdrawal worksheet.

¶16 A nurse assessed Casie for withdrawal signs again at 2:00 p.m. and recorded a score of zero on her withdrawal worksheet. Casie's vital signs were still normal, and Casie again denied any suicidal or self-harm thoughts.

¶17 Around 3:15 p.m., Casie underwent a comprehensive nursing examination. During this evaluation, her vital signs remained within the normal range. She again reported her previous cocaine and heroin use, and she complained of bruising resulting from the rape. As part of this examination, she was assessed for her current risk of suicide; she was not considered to be at risk for suicide or in need of immediate mental health treatment. But based on her reports of drug use and victimization, she was referred to be seen by a mental health professional (MHP) in...