Ivey v. Audrain County, No. 19-2507 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After Mark Ivey died while in jail, Mark's father (plaintiff) filed suit under Missouri's wrongful death statute against three jail employees under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of deliberate indifference to Mark's serious medical needs. Plaintiff also filed suit against the county on the ground that its failure to train the officers caused Mark's death. The coroner ruled that Mark's cause of death was acute asthma exacerbation. The district court denied summary judgment as to all defendants.
The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the officers did not violate clearly established law and are entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that the officers here faced a materially different situation than in McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2009). In this case, Mark was conscious and able to communicate; he told the officers that he did not want medical assistance and raised various complaints to the nurse who checked on him; and, even assuming the officers knew Mark had asthma or was withdrawing from drugs, the record shows Mark affirmatively declined their offers to assist him with those difficulties. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the county's appeal where the question of whether it is liable for failing to train its officers is not inextricably intertwined with the matter of qualified immunity.
Court Description: [Arnold, Author, with Loken and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff's decedent died while detained at the Audrain County jail and plaintiff brought this action alleging three jail employees violated his son's civil rights by deliberate indifference to his medical needs and that the County failed to properly train the officers; the district court denied the jail employees' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity and they appeal; the decision plaintiff relies on to show the officers violated clearly established law was materially different from the facts presented here, and plaintiff offers no other controlling authority or robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority governing the situation to support his position of a clearly established right; the officers did not violate clearly established law and were entitled to qualified immunity; the County was not entitled to summary judgment as the court has not held that no constitutional violation occurred; rather, the court holds only that the officers are immune from suit because they did not violated plaintiff's decedent's clearly established rights; the question of whether the county is liable for failing to train the officers was not inextricably intertwined with the matter of qualified immunity and the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the county's appeal. Judge Grasz, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.