Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-6373
JEAN B. GERMAIN,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
BOBBY SHEARIN; JAMES HOLWAGER; LT. HARBAUGH; SERGEANT
SMITH; BRUCE A. LILLER; SGT. MCALPINE; LAURA MOULDEN,
Defendants Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-01613-JFM)
Argued:
Decided:
July 3, 2013
PER CURIAM:
Jean
against
Germain
various
filed
this
officials
action
and
under
employees
at
42
U.S.C.
1983
North
Branch
the
alleging
that
the
defendants,
with
deliberate
cell,
and
that
the
conditions
of
confinement
in
The district
that
he
had
serious
or
significant
physical
or
where
he
sought
injunctive
relief
granting
him
stabbed
the
assailant
over
hundred
In response,
times,
which
Shortly
thereafter,
Maryland
officials
transferred
until
he
returned
to
JCI
in
2003.
Dr.
Musk,
chief
As a result, Germain
In October 2009,
refused
concluded
to
that
accept
Germain
double
did
not
cell.
meet
Psychologists
the
criteria
later
to
be
Germain
While recognizing
that Germain had been diagnosed with anxiety disorder and had
acted violently in the past, the court concluded that prison
psychologists
disorder.
were
Id. at *4.
adequately
treating
We affirmed.
Germains
anxiety
week
after
our
decision,
prison
officials
informed
Given
of
psychology
at
NBCI,
who
stressed
to
Germain
the
As a result,
ninety
days
to
help
his
transition
to
double
cell.
Germain
advised
Dr.
Liller
that
he
no
longer
had
cell.
Germain
contends
that
the
toilet
in
the
contingency cell was inoperable and filled with urine and feces;
he was deprived of toilet paper to clean himself after using the
toilet; and flies, ants, and other insects infested the cell.
Germain also contends that during his time in the contingency
cell
he
was
deprived
suffered headaches.
of
food,
lost
twenty-three
pounds,
and
summary
judgment,
concluding
5
that
one
of
the
The
court
reasoned
that
defendants
did
not
act
with
anxiety.
The
court
conditions-of-confinement
also
claim
concluded
failed
that
because
Germains
there
was
no
emotional
injury.
Germain
moved
to
alter
or
amend
the
II.
The issues before us are whether the district court erred
in
granting
defendants
summary
were
judgment
deliberately
on
Germains
indifferent
to
claims
that
Germains
(1)
medical
review
Germains
challenges
to
the
district
courts
of law.
establish
the
existence
of
an
element
essential
to
that
partys case, and on which that party will bear the burden of
proof at trial.
(1986).
is
some
metaphysical
doubt
as
to
the
material
facts,
Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986).
Anderson,
respect
to
the
objective
prong,
[o]nly
extreme
Id.
risk
of
such
serious
harm
resulting
from
the
Id.
953
(4th
Cir.
1979)
(internal
quotations
omitted),
first
consider
Germains
argument
that
the
district
defendants
were
deliberately
indifferent
to
his
medical
needs by (1) assigning him to a double cell on May 31, 2011; and
(2) delaying his reassignment to a single cell for almost two
to
Germain,
the
district
court
erred
in
treatment
report,
plan
which
he
suicide attempt.
because
it
relied
prepared
only
solely
after
on
Germains
Dr.
Lillers
transfer
and
the
sufficient
is
part,
evidence
indifference.
anxiety
most
however,
that
defendants
Defendants
insufficient
Germain
knowledge
to
support
does
acted
of
a
not
with
Germains
finding
of
present
deliberate
history
of
deliberate
cell.
concluded
that
To
the
contrary,
Germains
anxiety
Dr.
was
Holwager
not
had
severe
previously
enough
to
note,
together
with
the
record
evidence,
without
that
an
defendants
acted
evaluation.
At most, Germain
negligently
Mere
in
negligence,
transferring
however,
is
at 695.
We reach a different conclusion as to Germains claim that
Sgt.
Smith
acted
with
deliberate
indifference
after
Germain
Defendants presented
courts
grounds
for
granting
Sgt.
Smith
summary
defendants
took
Germains
suicide
threat
seriously.
determination,
which
is
properly
resolved
by
10
factfinder,
not
judge
judgment.
Anderson,
477
ruling
U.S.
on
at
255.
motion
for
Moreover,
summary
Germains
risk
of
the
precise
type
of
harm
that
followed.
suicide cell would have been stripped of any items Germain could
use to cause himself harm.
indifference
to
that
risk,
Germain
has
raised
further
argues
that
factfinder
could
conclude
his
double-cell
nearly
two
status
weeks
and
contingency
following
his
cell
suicide
confinement
attempt.
for
Germain
intent
to
recommend
temporary
single-cell
assignment,
acted
with
deliberate
indifference.
During
this
Indeed,
apparent
observation;
suicide
evaluated
his
attempt:
mental
they
health
placed
the
him
under
following
day,
has
failed
to
present
triable
issue
of
In short,
fact
that
conditions
Amendment.
in
Germain
his
contingency
contends
that
12
cell
he
violated
should
the
survive
Eighth
summary
with
waste.
bugs
and
had
According
an
to
inoperable
Germain,
toilet
this
is
filled
with
sufficient
to
again,
however,
sufficient
evidence
defendants
acted
pointed
anything
to
to
with
in
Germain
allow
failed
factfinder
deliberate
the
has
to
that
provide
conclude
indifference.
record
to
He
demonstrates
that
has
that
not
he
Cf. Rish v.
Johnson, 131 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1997) (finding no direct
evidence that prison officials knew proximity to waste posed a
substantial risk of harm).
regular
meals,
or
that
any
of
the
named
defendants
was
Because Germain
III.
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court, except that we vacate its grant of summary judgment to
Sgt.
Smith
on
Germains
claim
that
Sgt.
Smith
acted
with
We remand
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED IN PART;
AND REMANDED
14