Peggy Patterson, on behalf of her daughter, Shantrell Haggan VS Sheriff Brent Allain (Individually and in his Official Capacities as Sheriff of Iberville Parish), Danny Falcon, David Whittenbert, Antoinette Dominique, Calvin Green (Individually and in their Official Capacities as Deputies for the Iberville Parish Sher
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISYANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 1365 PEGGY PATTERSON ON BEHALF OF HER DAUGHTER SHANTRELL HAGGAN VERSUS SHERIFF BRENT ALLAIN INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS SHERIFF OF IBERVILLE PARISH DANNY FALCON DAVID WHI ANTOINETTE DOMINIQUE CALVIN GREEN TENBERG INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS DEPUTIES I FOR THE IBERVILLE PARISH SHERIFF OFFICE AND XYZ INSURANCE S COMPANY ludgment Rendered APR 2 6 2013 On Appeal from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Iberville State of Louisiana No 67756 Honorable James J Best Judge Presiding Edmond D Jordan Brusly Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiffs Appellants Peggy Patterson on behalf of her Daughter Shantrell Haggan and Elton Heron Geismar Louisiana Dana K Larpenteur Plaquemine Louisiana and James P Dore Amy D Berret R Benn Baton Vincent Rouge BEFORE Jr Louisiana Counsel for Defendants Appellees Sheriff Brent Allain Individually and In his capacity as Sheriff of Iberville Parish Danny Falcon David Whittenberg Antoinette Dominique Calvin Green Individually and in their Official capacities as Deputies For the Iberville Parish Sheriff s Office and XYZ Insurance Company WHIPPLE C McCLENDON 7 AND HIGGINBOTHAM JJ McCLENDON J Plaintiff whose daughter committed suicide while detained in an isolation cell of a local jail sought punitive damages against the jailers pursuant to 42 1983 To recover damages under Section 1983 plaintiff was required to C S U establish the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the detainee s serious medical needs The trial court concluded that the jailers were not deliberately indifferent to the detainee serious medical needs and denied s punitive damages Plaintiff has appealed to seek review of the denial of the punitive damages For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 29 2008 Deputy David Whittenberg of the Iberville Parish s ce Sheriff O arrested Shantrell Haggan While Haggan was being transported to the Iberville Parish Jail Haggan among other comments made to Deputy Whittenburg threatened suicide stating that she would hang herself if she was taken to jail After Deputy Whittenberg arrived at the jail he relayed the threat of suicide to Deputy Calvin Green a jailer at the Iberville Parish Jail Once they arrived at the jail Haggan who was shackled to a bench exhibited aggressive and combative behavior towards the jailers Because of her prior threat of suicide and behavior Deputy Green decided to move Haggan into an isolation cell while he and Deputy Antoinette Dominique located the items necessary to place Haggan under formal suicide watch Said items included a suicide smock Haggan who was not searched prior to being placed in the isolation cell was wearing a short skirt with a top that fit tightly around her waist The top of the blouse overlapped her skirt and the jailers were unaware that Haggan was wearing a belt Nor was a belt apparent Deputy Dominique who had brought Haggan to the restroom before Haggan was piaced in the cell indicated that Haggan raised her miniskirt and no print in the waist that indicated that she had a belt She raised her skirt up and the little top she had on didn indicate a t belt buckle or anything on her 2 After returning to Haggan cell 12 to 13 minutes after Haggan had been s placed in the isolation cell Deputy Dominique found Haggan hanging from a pipe in the cell wall Haggan had used her belt to commit suicide s Haggan mother Peggy Patterson instituted a wrongful death action Plaintiff claimed that Haggan suicide was solely and proximately caused by the s gross and flagrant recklessness carelessness and negligence of David Whittenberg Calvin Green Antoinette Dominique and Daniel Falcon Further plaintiff alleged that Sherriff Brent Allain failed to properly train Whittenberg Green Dominique and Falcon Plaintiff in an amended petition also alleged that Whittenberg Green exemplary punitive damages Dominique and Falcon were liable for 1983 for acting with deliberate under 42 U C S indifference to Haggan suicide condition insofar as they left Haggan in a cell s unattended with her belt after being on notice of Haggan suicidal threats s After a bench trial the trial court found that Green and Dominique were negligent in placing Haggan in the cell without searching her The trial court denied plaintiff punitive damage claim finding that the defendants did not act s with deliberate indifference The trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff against Dominique Green and Sheriff Allain in his official capacity in the amount of 300 Plaintiff appeals the judgment alleging that the 00 000 trial court erred in not awarding punitive damages under 42 U C S 1983 DISCUSSION To state a claim 0 S under 42 U 1983 a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law West v Atkins 487 U 42 48 108 S 2250 2254 S Ct 55 101 L 40 1988 Section 1983 imposes liability for violation of rights 2d Ed 1 Daniel Falcon was the assistant warden at the Iberville Parish ail On the morning of the incident the jailers called him at home seeking authorization to place Ms Haggan in the isolation cell Z The trial court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff claims against Sheriff Allain individually s Falcon and Whittenberg Plaintiff has not sought review of any of these dismissals on appeal 3 protected by the Constitution not for violations of duties arising out of tort law Baker v McCollan 443 U 137 146 99 S 2689 61 L 433 S Ct 2d Ed Deliberate indifference to a prisoner serious illness or injury states a s cause of action under Section 1983 based on the prisoner Eighth Amendment s right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment Estelle v Gamble 429 S U 97 104 97 S 285 291 50 L 251 1976 05 Ct 2d Ed Because Haggan was a pretrial detainee rather than a convicted prisoner the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eight Amendment applies The Fourteenth Amendment right of pretrial detainees like the Eighth Amendment right of convicted prisoners requires that government officials not be deliberately indifferent to any serious medical needs of the detainee See City of Revere v Massachusetts Gen Hosp 463 U 239 244 103 S 2979 S Ct 2983 77 L 605 1983 2d Ed Deliberate indifference describes a state of mind more blameworthy than negligence Farmer v Brennan 511 U 825 835 114 S 1970 1978 128 S Ct 2d Ed L 811 1994 lack of due care Eighth Amendment liability requires more than ordinary for the s prisoner interests indifference can be equated with recklessness or safety Id Deliberate Acting or failing to act with deliberate indifference to a substantial risk of harm is equivalent to recklessly disregarding that risk liable under the Id 511 U at 836 114 S at 1978 To be found S Ct Eighth Amendment for denying humane conditions of confinement a prison official must know of and disregard an excessive risk to inmate health or safety Id 511 U at 837 114 S at 1979 The official S Ct must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and he must also draw the inference Id In the context of protecting a pretrial detainee from self harm inflicted defendants will only be liable under Section 1983 if they had subjective knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to a pretrial detainee but responded with deliberate indifference 7acobs v West Feliciana Sheriff s t Dep 228 3d F 388 394 5 Cir 2000 4 Although the law is clearly established that jailers must take measures to prevent inmate suicides once they know of the suicide risk we cannot say that the law is established with any clarity as to what those measures must be acobs 228 F at 394 3d 95 uotin Hare v City of Corinth 135 F 320 328 5 Cir 1998 uotin 3d 29 Rellergert v Cape Girardeau County Mo 924 F 794 797 8 Cir 2d 1991 It is well however that negligent inaction by a jail officer does settled not violate the due process rights of a person lawfully held in custody of the State Id citin Hare v City of Corinth 74 F 633 645 5 Cir 1996 3d citin Davidson v Cannon 474 U 344 348 106 S 668 671 88 L S Ct 2d Ed 677 1986 Accordingly to be considered deliberately indifferent to a known suicide risk an officer acts must constitute at least more than a mere s oversight Id 228 F at 395 The plaintiffs must establish that the officers 3d were aware of a substantial and significant risk that the pretrial detainee might kill herself but effectively disregarded it Id Jacobs which was distinguished by the trial court involved a pretrial detainee who committed suicide Prior to her suicide the sheriff had been advised that Jacobs tried to kill herself immediakely following her alleged crime but was unsuccessful because her gun jammed Jacobs was placed in a detox cell and placed on suicide watch The cell had several tie points from which off a makeshift rope could be suspended and a blind spot that was not visible to jailers from the controi room Another inmate had previously committed suicide in the very same cell by hanging himself with a sheet from one of the tie off points On the third day of her detention a deputy provided the detainee with a sheet Jacobs utilized this sheet to hang herself from one of the tie points in off the cell Approximately farty minutes had elapsed from the time that the five deputy last checked on acobs to the time she was discovered hanginy from the light fixture in her cell s Jacobs ehildren filed a Section 1983 action naming the sheriff and two deputies as defendants The defendants moved for summary judgment The district court denied the motion and the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial as to the 5 sheriff and one of the dep fi that there was sufficient evidence in the ties ding record for a jury to conclude that the sheriff and deputy acted with deliberate indifference to Jacobs known suicidal tendencies 7acobs 228 F at 396 s 3d 98 With regard to the sheriff the court found that summary judgment was properly denied insofar as he ratified the decision of keeping acobs in the detox cell which he acknowledged was not advisable due to its tie points and his off awareness of a prior suicide in that cell and he ordered his deputies to give Jacobs a blanket and towel despite knowledge of her suicide risk Id 228 3d F at 395 As to the deputy who was denied summary judgment the court noted that the deputy observed Jacobs lying on the bunk in the detox cell several times with a sheet despite his awareness that a prior suicide had occurred in that cell using a blanket and that suicidal inmates should not be given loose bedding The deputy did not take the sheet away or check on Jacobs as frequently as he was required Id 228 F at 397 3d In contrast in Brown v Harris 240 F 383 4 Cir 2001 the court 3d affirmed summary judgment in favor of a jail supervisor Ogden after a detainee Brown committed suicide by hanging himself with his shoelaces three days following his arrival at the jail Brown father filed suit against Ogden s alleging that Ogden acts violated Section 1983 insofar as Ogden had been s instructed that the detainee was suicidal but failed to place Brown in a paper gown or have him examined by medical which is what Ogden would have ordinarily done with a suicidal detainee Id 240 F at 390 Rather Ogden 3d responded by immediately placing the detainee on medical watch which It is unclear whether the sheet was in lieu of or in addition to the blanket and towel ordered by the sheriff By contrast the deputy in whose favor summary judgment was granted although he was aware that acobs was a suicide risk did not make the decision to place her in the detox cell had nothing to do with the order that Jacobs be given a blanket or towel and had no knowledge of the prior suicide in that cell acobs 228 F at 398 Although he did not check on Jacobs 3d every fifteen minutes as required by the sheriff unwritten polity the murt found that such s negligence was insufficient to support a finding of deliberate indifference Id 6 established constant surveillance of Brown cell In affirming the grant of a s motion for summary judgment in favor of Ogden the Fourth Circuit reasoned In the end if we assume that Odgen was told that Brown was suicidal he simply took less action than he could have and by his own admission should have That does not however either negate the reasonableness of his response or mean that he acted with deliberate indifference At most Ogden failure to take s additional precautions was negligent and not deliberately indifferent because by placing Brown on constant video surveillance he simply did not disrega d an excessive risk to s Brown health or safety Farmer 511 U at 837 114 S S Ct 1970 emphasis added Negligence however does not give rise to a constitutional claim where the operative standard is deliberate indifference See Grayson v Peed 195 F 692 965 4th Cir 3d 1999 Deliberate indifference is a very high standard showing a of inere negligence will not meet it As a result we hold that there is no basis for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that Odgen acted with deliberate indifference to the risk which he knew Id 240 F at 390 3d 91 Herein plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in not finding that the conduct of Deputies Green and Dominique constituted deliberate indifFerence to s Haggan safety and life Plaintiff avers that it is undisputed that both deputies received actual notice of Haggan intent to commit suicide Moreover s the deputies were aware of the reasonable precautionary measures that the s ce sheriff o required them to take when confronted with actual notice of suicidal threats by a detainee including obtaining any personal belongings that could be used by inmates to cause death or great bodily harm Notwithstanding s Haggan threats plaintiff asserts that the deputies failed to take reasonable precautionary measures of removing Haggan belt and other dangerous articles s of clothing before making the conscious decision to leave Haggan completely unattended in a dangerous isolation cell Plaintiff notes that Lindsay Hayes her expert in suicide policy and procedure opined that Ms Haggan given her threat of suicide should have been treated as a high risk and placed on constant observation Plaintiff suicide also notes that defendant expert in suicide policy and procedure George s 5 Although the detainee cell was under constant surveillance the ofFicer responsible for s monitoring the detainee cell as well as 27 others by way of small video screens did not notice s that the detainee had hu himself until after the code was called by someone else g 7 Armbruster Jr also agreed that Ms Haggan was a high risk Moreover suicide Mr Armbruster did not disagree with Mr Hayes opinion that constant s observation was warranted Plaintiff asserts that instead of providing continuous and uninterrupted observation the deputies recklessly ignored the suicide threats by leaving Ms Haggan completely unattended in a suicide cell with prone all of her clothing including her belt It is well settled that an appellate court cannot set aside a trial court s findings of fact in the absence of manifest error or unless those findings are clearly wrong Rosell v ESCO 549 So 840 844 La 1989 Plaintiff asserts 2d however that the trial court erroneously applied the deliberate indifference standard apparently requesting that this court conduct a de nouo review We disagree Nevertheless even utilizing a de novo review we conclude that the trial court did not err in reaching its conclusion Although deputies Green and Dominique were advised that Haggan threatened suicide while in route to the jail Haggan never threatened suicide in the presence of the deputies once she arrived at the jail It was not evident that Haggan was wearing a belt despite her tightly fitted blouse and skirt Further both deputies testified that they were unaware that Haggan was in possession of a belt Green and Dominique recognizing the seriousness of Haggan threat of s suicide were in the process of implementing the suicide watch procedures Due to Haggan behavior however the decision was made to place her in the s isolation cell while the deputies looked for the necessary items to place her on suicide watch including a suicide smock The cell had been previously used for people who were intoxicated and who were threatening to harm themselves No suicide had ever occurred in the isolation cell and no suicide had ever taken 6 With regard to questions of law appellate review is simply a review of whether the trial court was legally correct or legally incorrect Boyd v Boyd 2010 La 1 Cir 2 57 1369 App 11 11 So 3d 1169 1174 A legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial Evans v Lungrin 97 La 2 708 So 2d 731 735 Legal 0541 98 6 errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the outcome and deprive a party of substantial rights Id When such a prejudicial error of law skews the trial court finding of a material issue s of fact and causes it to pretermit other issues the appellate court is required if it can to render judgment on the record by applying the correct law and determining the essential material facts de novo Id 8 place at the jail Moreaver Haygar was left r for 12 minutes Cf abseroed 13 acobs wherein the sheriff and deputy were aware of a prior suicide in the cell and the inmate was provided with a sheet and left unobserved for 45 minutes Clearly Green and Dominique by their own admission were negligent in failing to frisk Haggan and remove the belt before placing Haggan in the isolation cell The deputies negligence however is insufficient to constitute deliberate indifference Their actions in among other things attempting to locate a suicide smock to formally put Haggan on suicide watch reflects that the deputies did not simply disregard an excessive risk to Haggan health or safety Farmer s 511 U at 837 114 S at 1979 S Ct Accordingly even utilizing a de novo standard of review we conclude that the evidence does not establish that defendants r onduct constituted deliberate indifference Plaintiff assignments s of error are without merit CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons the trial court January 4 2012 judgment is s affirmed Costs of this appeal are assessed to plaintiff Peggy Patterson AFFIRMED 9
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.
