Lemire v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., No. 11-15475 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 after Robert St. Jovite committed suicide when he was an inmate in the California Prison System. The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims that the warden and captain impermissibly convened a staff meeting that resulted in the absence of all floor officers from the building where a jury could conclude that the complete withdrawal of all supervision created an unconstitutional risk of harm to the mentally ill inmates in St. Jovite's building and that the warden and captain were responsible for, and deliberately indifferent, to this lack of supervision. The jury could also conclude that the lack of floor staff was an actual and proximate cause of St. Jovite's death. The court also held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs' claims based on the failure to administer CPR by defendants where there was a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to St. Jovite's potentially serious medical need. Accordingly, the court vacated summary judgment with respect to these claims. The court affirmed in all other respects.
Court Description: Prisoner Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s summary judgment and remanded in an action arising from the apparent suicide of an inmate in the California prison system. The panel held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claims that defendants Warden Dennis Sisto and Captain James Neuhring impermissibly convened a staff meeting that resulted in the absence of all floor officers from the building where the inmate was incarcerated for a period of as long as three and a half hours because those claims presented triable issues of fact. The panel held that a jury could conclude, on the basis of the factual record before the district court, that the complete withdrawal of all supervision created an unconstitutional risk of harm to the mentally ill inmates, that Sisto and Neuhring were responsible for, and deliberately indifferent to, this lack of supervision and that the lack of floor staff was an actual and proximate cause of the inmate’s death. The panel affirmed, however, the grant of summary judgment on the inadequate staffing claim with respect to defendants Lieutenant Gordon Wong, Sergeant Gale Martinez, and Sergeant Cheryl Orrick. The panel also held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment with respect to plaintiffs’ claims based on the failure to administer CPR by defendants Officer Rebecca Cahoon and Officer Chris Holliday. The panel concluded that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants Cahoon and Holliday were deliberately indifferent to the inmate’s potentially serious medical need when they first arrived at his cell. The panel affirmed with respect to plaintiffs’ claims for failure to provide proper medical treatment with respect to the remaining defendants. The panel also affirmed with respect to the failure to train claims.
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.