Page 28 - TPA Journal March April 2017
P. 28
The Supreme Court made this point clear in that officer was relieved that Hyatt hanged
Farmer, when, considering a claim of deliber- himself. It is uncontested that she had no
ate indifference to the risk of inmate-on-inmate knowledge of the presence of the plastic bag in
violence, it observed: Hyatt’s cell. Thomas’s failure to inspect Hyatt’s
cell and retrieve the plastic bag, and any other
[A] prison official [may not] escape liability potential ligatures, was perhaps negligent, but
for deliberate indifference by showing that, “negligent inaction by a jail officer does not
while he was aware of an obvious, substantial violate the due process rights of a person law-
risk to inmate safety, he did not know that the fully held in custody of the State.”
complainant was especially likely to be
assaulted by the specific prisoner who eventu- Finally, although failure to properly exe-
ally committed the assault. The question under cute a suicide prevention policy may amount
the Eighth Amendment is whether prison offi- to deliberate indifference, in this case, consid-
cials, acting with deliberate indifference, ering the steps that Thomas did take, any
exposed a prisoner to a sufficiently substantial potential noncompliance with Callahan
“risk of serious damage to his future health,” County’s policy would have been at most neg-
and it does not matter whether the risk comes ligent. We therefore hold that, while not ideal,
from a single source or multiple sources, any her failure to exercise even greater care to
more than it matters whether a prisoner faces avoid Hyatt’s suicide did not amount to delib-
an excessive risk of attack for reasons personal erate indifference.
to him or because all prisoners in his situation
face such a risk. Officer Thomas took measures to prevent
Jason Hyatt’s suicide: she withheld from him
Thomas’s awareness of the substantial risk the most obvious potential ligature, placed
that Hyatt would attempt suicide if given the him under video surveillance, and directed her
opportunity would therefore satisfy the aware- relieving officer to keep a close watch over
ness requirement. him. Although these measures were ultimately,
and tragically, insufficient, we cannot say that
A prison official acts with deliberate indif- they constitute deliberate indifference. The
ference only if “he knows that inmates face a judgment of the district court granting summa-
substantial risk of serious bodily harm . . . [and] ry on grounds of qualified immunity is there-
disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable fore AFFIRMED.
measures to abate it.” Although “we cannot
say that the law is established with any clarity Hyatt v. Thomas, No. 15-10708, 5th Cir.,
as to what those measures must be,” we con- Nov. 18th, 2016.
clude that in this case, Thomas responded rea-
sonably to Hyatt’s risk of suicide. She withheld
from Hyatt the most obvious means for self-
harm and placed him under continuous, if ulti-
mately imperfect, video surveillance. Thomas
also took care to inform her relieving officer
that Hyatt was a potential suicide risk and that
he needed to be observed; it was not until after
24 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
