Sign Up for Vincent AI
Lawler v. Hardeman Cnty.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Jackson. No. 1:19-cv-01174—S. Thomas Anderson, District Judge.
ARGUED: Nathan D. Tilly, PENTECOST, GLENN & TILLY, PLLC, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellants. Matthew T. May, ROSENBLUM & REISMAN, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Nathan D. Tilly, PENTECOST, GLENN & TILLY, PLLC, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellants. Matthew T. May, Jeffrey S. Rosenblum, ROSENBLUM & REISMAN, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellee.
Before: GIBBONS, LARSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
The doctrine of qualified immunity insulates public officials from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the caselaw existing at the time of their actions clearly established that they violated the Constitution. There often will not be much difference between the then-existing law and the current law. As this case shows, however, this distinction can sometimes matter.
In July 2018, Brian Lawler tragically committed suicide at a county jail. To hold officers liable for failing to prevent a pretrial detainee's death at that time, our caselaw required proof that the officers subjectively believed that there was a strong likelihood the inmate would commit suicide. See Grabow v. County of Macomb, 580 F. App'x 300, 307-09 (6th Cir. 2014). Today, however, our court would hold officers liable if they recklessly overlooked a pretrial detainee's strong likelihood of suicide—even if they did not subjectively recognize it. See Helphenstine v. Lewis County, 60 F.4th 305, 316-17 (6th Cir. 2023). When denying qualified immunity to the officers sued in this case, the district court held that a reasonable jury could find that they "recklessly disregarded" the strong risk that Lawler would commit suicide. But that standard governs today; it did not govern when Lawler committed suicide in 2018. And when we apply the correct test, the evidence shows that the officers did not subjectively believe that Lawler was likely to take his life. We thus reverse the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the officers.
Brian Lawler spent many years in the wrestling business. He wrestled both with World Wrestling Entertainment and with other independent companies. But he eventually landed on hard times after suffering injuries and struggling with addictions.
Around 1:00 a.m. on July 7, 2018, a sheriff's deputy stopped Lawler for traffic infractions in Hardeman County, Tennessee. Lawler was driving on a suspended license, and the deputy suspected that he was impaired. The deputy thus arrested Lawler and took him to the Hardeman County Jail.
Later that morning, Sergeant Ellen Futrell booked Lawler into the county jail. Jail policies required her to complete a medical-screening form. Futrell completed this form by asking Lawler questions and recording his answers on her computer. During this screening, Lawler stated that he suffered from bipolar disorder and that he had been prescribed medication for this condition. He also disclosed that he was taking oxycodone and Xanax and had experienced withdrawals in the past from his drug and alcohol abuse. He added that he had once suffered a head injury that required hospitalization.
The screening form separately evaluates an inmate's suicide risk. One compound question asks: Form, R.90-7, PageID 1345. In response to this inquiry, Lawler admitted that he had attempted suicide. Futrell thus originally typed "Yes" in response to the question, which led the jail's computer system to automatically place Lawler on suicide watch. But Futrell soon learned that Lawler's attempt had occurred more than two years ago. According to Futrell, Lawler (who was 46 years old) said that he had attempted suicide "in his 20s, when he was young and experimenting." Futrell Dep., R.92-6, PageID 2200. She thus changed the answer to "No" in the computer system, which took Lawler off suicide watch. The form's next question then directed Futrell to ask: "Are you currently thinking about suicide?" Form, R.90-7, PageID 1345. Lawler answered "No." Id. Ultimately, Futrell chose not to record Lawler's prior suicide attempt anywhere on the form because he did not appear suicidal.
Two days later, Nurse Jill Shearon evaluated Lawler. Lawler again disavowed any desire to harm himself. And Shearon also concluded that he was not suicidal.
Unable to post bond, Lawler remained in jail for weeks. Near the start of his detention, he told jail staff that he had fallen out of his cell's top bunk and injured his knees. Nurse Shearon gave him ibuprofen in response to this incident and on a few other occasions. But Lawler repeatedly complained that jail staff often failed to provide him with his daily over-the-counter medications to manage his chronic knee pain.
On Saturday, July 28, Lawler got into a fight with another inmate. He suffered a substantial cut that started on his forehead above his left eye and ran down past the inside of his eyebrow. Lawler demanded to go to the hospital. The record contains conflicting evidence about his reason. Some evidence suggests that he claimed to have a concussion. Other evidence suggests that he claimed to need plastic surgery to prevent a scar.
Nurse Shearon did not work on the weekends. Officer Judy Wiggins called her about Lawler's cut around 11:00 a.m., suggesting that he "may need stitches." Shearon Dep., R.92-11, PageID 2722. Shearon asked Wiggins to text her a picture of the injury. After reviewing the photo, Shearon did not believe it looked all that bad. She instructed Wiggins to clean and bandage the wound. Yet Lawler refused to accept care from Wiggins.
As a result, Shearon made a special trip to the jail shortly before noon to treat Lawler. After confirming that he did not need to go to the hospital, she cleaned the cut and put butterfly closures on it. Still, she did not want Lawler returned to the jail's "general population" until Monday. Shearon Dep., R.92-11, PageID 2692. She instructed Wiggins to place him in an intake cell so that the officers could "watch him closer because of the laceration." Id. Shearon, though, did not identify any specific intake cell. She then left.
Wiggins placed Lawler in Cell 90 around noon. To walk to that cell, one had to get buzzed through a secure door into the sally port and turn to the right. The sally port otherwise led straight back to another secure door that opened into a large garage for vehicles. Cell 90's door had a vertically long but narrow window. Given the cell's isolated location and narrow window, staff members could not see Lawler from the intake area's central desk unless he stood in front of the door. According to Wiggins, she had to put Lawler in this "cell of last resort" because they were holding juveniles in other intake cells. Wiggins Dep., R.92-16, PageID 3129-30.
Lawler disliked Cell 90. He "ranted and raved" over the next six and a half hours. Id., PageID 3099. Lawler yelled that he wanted to go to the hospital or back to his pod. He also asked Wiggins to call his father so that he could try to obtain bail money. And he repeatedly kicked and hit his cell door. According to Wiggins, Lawler's temperamental nature represented a "drastic change" from his mood during her prior interactions with him. Id., PageID 3141, 3189. Despite his loud and repeated outbursts, Wiggins did not alert Nurse Shearon or anyone else about his conduct. Nor did she try to calm Lawler or meet his demands.
That evening, some correctional officers made a taco dinner near the end of their shift. Around 6:30 p.m., Officer William Gonzalez volunteered to clean up the mess and take out the trash. To get to the outside dumpster, Gonzalez needed to walk through the sally port and garage. He decided to look in on Lawler while passing Cell 90. Gonzalez viewed that task as part of his duties even if it did not correspond with an officially scheduled "check." He also liked to "interact with" Lawler, a well-known wrestler. Gonzalez Dep., R.92-37, PageID 4413. Lawler had always been "upbeat" and "happy" during their interactions. Id., PageID 4377, 4418, 4421.
Gonzalez thus peered into Cell 90 as he walked to the dumpster. The cell contained a concrete bench that, from Gonzalez's perspective at the narrow window, ran across its left wall. Made of cinder blocks, this bench rose about two feet from the floor. Lawler appeared to be standing on the corner of the bench to the left of the cell door with his back against the front wall. Gonzalez could not see Lawler's face because he had a towel draped over his head and neck. When Gonzalez knocked, Lawler did not move.
Rather than wait for a reaction, Gonzalez finished taking the trash out through the garage. According to Gonzalez, inmates "commonly" stood on the corner of the bench closest to the cell door to hide from onlookers. Id., PageID 4447, 4462-63. Gonzalez also knew that inmates regularly put towels around their necks or heads (although he had not seen Lawler do so before). And inmates often did not answer when staff knocked on their cell doors. So Gonzalez thought that an "upset" Lawler was simply trying to hide from passersby because he was "famous" and had a cut on his face. Id., PageID 4408, 4413, 4438.
Gonzalez took the trash out and returned to Cell 90 about one minute later. Lawler was in the same position. Gonzalez knocked again, but Lawler again did not respond. So Gonzalez knocked a third time more loudly. When Lawler still did not respond,...
Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting