Gantt v. Everett

1

RACHEAL GANTT, Plaintiff, v. DEPUTY MONICA EVERETT, Defendant.

No. 2:23-CV-648-RDP

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division

June 17, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

R. DAVID PROCTOR, CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the court on Defendant Deputy Monica Everett's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 34). The Motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for review. (Docs # 36, 41, 43). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion (Doc. # 34) is due to be granted in part and denied in part.

I. Factual Background

On or around February 4, 2023, Plaintiff Racheal Gantt was arrested, transported to the Jefferson County Jail, and booked as a pretrial detainee. (Doc. # 1 ¶¶ 6-7). All female inmates at the jail are housed on the fifth floor. (Doc. # 35-3 at 5). The fifth floor has seven total “blocks,” each identified by a different letter from “A” to “G.” (Id. at 38).

Within a few days of being at the jail, Plaintiff disclosed to a mental health worker that she was thinking of harming herself and was placed on suicide watch. (Docs. # 1 ¶ 11; 35-4 at 29-30). As a result, Plaintiff was transferred to “A Block,” one of the blocks on the fifth floor designated for prisoners who pose a suicide risk. (Docs. # 1 ¶ 12; 35-3 at 8). The facility's A Block contains two stories of cells that open to a common area referred to as the “day space.” (Docs. # 35-3 at 8; 35-4 at 16). For safety reasons, inmates on suicide watch are traditionally housed in a cell by themselves on the bottom level of A Block, although occasionally they may be housed on the top level as well. (Doc. # 35-3 at 8). Plaintiff was placed in Cell A11, which was on the bottom level. (Id. at 9). In addition, because Plaintiff was on suicide watch, she had her uniform taken and was issued a “suicide smock” - a green, thick Velcro blanket worn as clothes so that an inmate cannot rip or tear it to hang herself. (Id.).

On February 8, 2023, Deputy Niyasmine Morgan and Deputy Jamie Yunker were the two deputies assigned to the jail's fifth floor for the morning shift. (Doc. # 35-6 at 5). In addition, Control Room Operator Jamesanna Lovell (“CRO Lovell”) was stationed as the control room operator (“CRO”) on that floor. (Doc. # 35-5 at 4-5). The control room, which is located at the center of the fifth floor with glass windows overlooking each block, houses a large computer that can remotely lock and unlock each individual cell door. (Docs. # 35-4 at 19; 35-3 at 7). When a cell door is unlocked from the control room, it automatically swings open in the block. (Doc. # 35-4 at 25). Because the control room has an intercom system that connects to each block, deputies can verbally request a certain cell door be unlocked while stationed in a particular block and the CRO can remotely open it. (Id. at 9). Alternatively, deputies can travel between the individual blocks and the control room by walking through a sliding glass door and down a hallway. (Id. at 19-20; Doc. # 35-3 at 21).

Defendant Deputy Monica Everett (“Everett”) was assigned duties on the first floor of the jail on the morning of February 8, 2023. (Id. at 10-11). Around mid-morning, Everett was ordered to go up to the fifth floor to assist Deputies Morgan and Yunker with a shakedown in F Block. (Id. at 12). During the shakedown, Everett and Deputy Jasmine McCants were instructed to escort one of the female inmates in F Block to an individual cell in A Block. (Id. at 13).

When Everett and Deputy McCants entered A Block, Everett heard Plaintiff “screaming and crying hysterically” from her cell. (Id. at 14). Everett, who had never met Plaintiff before this point, walked over to Plaintiff's cell and asked her what was wrong. (Id.; Doc. # 35-1 at 13:56:04-13:56:16). Plaintiff responded that she had hit her head.^[1] (Doc. # 35-3 at 14). Everett asked to see Plaintiff's head; although she saw no bleeding, she saw a large knot on the side of her head. (Id.). In addition, Everett noticed that Plaintiff had a suicide smock instead of a uniform, and realized at this point that she was on suicide watch. (Id. at 10). The video evidence shows that Plaintiff was not actually wearing her suicide smock but was naked when the events giving rise to this matter transpired. (Doc. # 35-2). Therefore, although Everett testified that she noticed Plaintiff “wearing” a suicide smock, the court infers from the undisputed Rule 56 evidence that Everett actually noticed that Plaintiff had a suicide smock present with her in her cell.

Everett left Plaintiff in her cell and walked from A Block to the control room to contact the jail nurse and inform her of Plaintiff's head injury. (Id. at 19). The nurse instructed Everett to bring Plaintiff down to the third level. (Id.). A few other officers, including CRO Lovell and Deputy Yunker, were present in the control room during this interaction. (Id.; Doc. # 35-6 at 6). Everett asked one of the officers to grab Plaintiff a uniform to wear while she was being transported. (Doc. # 35-3 at 19). She then unlocked the door to Plaintiff's cell from the computer in the control room, before heading down the hallway to A Block to retrieve her. (Id. at 20; Doc. # 35-1 at 14:00:43). No deputies were present in A Block when Everett unlocked Plaintiff's cell door. (Doc. # 35-1 at 14:00:43).

When her cell door unlocked and swung open, Plaintiff immediately sprinted out of her cell and across the day space toward a set of stairs leading to the upper level of A Block. (Docs. # 35-3 at 21; 35-1 at 14:00:50-14:01-00). As Everett entered A Block, she saw Plaintiff run in front of her and up the stairs. (Docs. # 35-3 at 21; 35-1 at 14:01:02). Everett instructed her to come back down; however, Plaintiff ignored the order. (Doc. # 35-3 at 21-22). Everett then realized that Plaintiff had her hand on the second story railing and was planning to jump. (Id. at 22). Everett ran up the stairs and attempted to grab Plaintiff from the railing, but before she could do so, Plaintiff jumped from the balcony and landed at the bottom level of the day space. (Id.; Doc. # 35-1 at 14:01:02-14:01:06). A total of 23 seconds elapsed from the time Plaintiff's cell door was unlocked until the time she jumped from the second level railing. (Doc. # 35-1 at 14:00:43-14:01:06).

Other deputies saw Plaintiff jump from afar and issued a “Code White,” the jail's signal for a medical emergency. (Doc. # 35-3 at 26). While the deputies were waiting on the paramedics to arrive on the scene after Plaintiff's suicide attempt, a deputy emerged from Plaintiff's cell holding her suicide smock and used it to cover Plaintiff's body. (Doc. # 35-1 at 14:03:06-14:03:15). Birmingham Fire and Rescue arrived on the scene and transported Plaintiff from the jail to the emergency room, where she was treated for ankle fractures from her jump as well as the injury to her head. (Id. at 26-27; Doc. # 39-10 at 2). Plaintiff was released from the custody of the Jefferson County Jail after this incident. (Doc. # 35-3 at 31).

Plaintiff filed the current action on May 22, 2023. (Doc. # 1). The Complaint asserts a single cause of action against Everett under the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.).

II. Legal Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is proper “if .. there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). The party asking for summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings or filings which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. Once the moving party has met its burden, Rule 56 requires the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.

The substantive law will identify which facts are material and which are irrelevant. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). All reasonable doubts about the facts and all justifiable inferences are resolved in favor of the non-movant. See Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ. for Bibb Cty., 495 F.3d 1306, 1314 (11th Cir. 2007); Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). A dispute is genuine “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted. See id. at 249.

When faced with a “properly supported motion for summary judgment, [the nonmoving party] must come forward with specific factual evidence, presenting more than mere allegations.” Gargiulo v. G.M. Sales, Inc., 131 F.3d 995, 999 (11th Cir. 1997). As Anderson teaches, under Rule 56(c) a plaintiff may not simply rest on his allegations made in the complaint; instead, as the party bearing the burden of proof at trial, he must come forward with at least some evidence to support each element essential to his case at trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

“[A] party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment ‘may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but ... must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'” Id. at 248 (citations omitted).

Summary judgment is mandated “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322. “Summary judgment may be granted if the non-moving party's evidence is merely...