Ginger Headley; Mark Coffelt, individually and on behalf of Corey Coffelt, deceased v. Centurion of Missouri, LLC

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 25-1877
___________________________
Ginger Headley; Mark Coffelt, individually and on behalf of Corey Coffelt,
deceased
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Centurion of Missouri, LLC; Amanda Lake, in her individual capacity; Rusty
Ratliff; Janet Eddy, RN, in her individual and official capacities; Katlyn Huff, RN,
in her individual and official capacities
Defendants
Boshko Ognenovski; Valerie J. Helm; Carla L. Heckenmueller; Brackstin Gabriel
Carr; Tommie L. Luntsford
Defendants - Appellants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri - Hannibal
____________
Submitted: April 15, 2026
Filed: June 10, 2026
____________
Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
____________

-- 1 of 8 --

-2-
BENTON, Circuit Judge.
While in administrative segregation at Missouri’s Moberly Correctional
Center, Corey Coffelt took his own life by hanging. His parents, Ginger Headley
and Mark Coffelt, asserted state wrongful-death claims and federal claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against, among others, Corrections Officers Boshko Ognenovski,
Valerie J. Helm, Carla L. Heckenmueller-Boggs, Brackstin G. Carr, and Tommie L.
Luntsford. These corrections officers moved to dismiss three counts of the
complaint as barred by official and qualified immunity. The district court denied the
motions to dismiss as to two claims: the wrongful-death claim and the § 1983 claim
of deliberate indifference to the risk of suicide. The corrections officers appeal.
Having jurisdiction to review denials of official and qualified immunity under the
collateral order doctrine, this court reverses and remands. See Mitchell v. Forsyth,
472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985); N.S. v. Kansas City Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 933 F.3d
967, 970 (8th Cir. 2019).
While incarcerated at Moberly Correctional Center (MCC), Corey Coffelt
experienced mental health issues. On November 11, 2021, he began to request
medication and mental health services. A licensed professional counselor and, later,
a psychiatrist examined him for severe anxiety, depression, lack of sleep, paranoia,
psychosis, and audio and visual hallucinations. The psychiatrist diagnosed him with
substance-induced mood disorder with psychosis, prescribing anti-psychotic and
anti-anxiety medications. His medical records reflected these mental health
examinations and diagnoses as well as three prior suicide attempts by hanging.
Between December 21 and Coffelt’s death on February 6, the corrections
officers did not consistently administer his medications. He missed them at least
nine times. On February 4, at his request, Coffelt was ordered to segregated
confinement. His evaluation noted an “immediate security risk,” “urgent need to
separate the offender from others for his/her own safety or that of others” and “for
the security and good order of the institution.” His medical record from that day
said he was “suffering from existing medical/mental health conditions, taking dose-

-- 2 of 8 --

-3-
by-dose psychotropic medications, and quiet.” The nurse practitioner evaluating
Coffelt determined he did not need to be placed on suicide watch.
While on duty February 6, the corrections officers were responsible for
checking on Coffelt per MCC policy. This policy mandated that he be visually
checked three times per hour, or every 20 minutes. Shortly after midnight, Coffelt
was found hanging in his administrative segregation cell with a bedsheet around his
neck. MCC medical providers pronounced him dead. The corrections officers
reported that the last time they saw him alive and talking was an hour before his
death.
I.
Count II of the complaint alleges “Wrongful Death – Negligence” under
Missouri law. In their complaint, Coffelt’s parents claim that the corrections officers
were aware of his serious mental health needs yet failed to provide adequate and
timely medical treatment, failed to properly monitor him while in administrative
segregation, and failed to ensure his safety, which ultimately led to his death. They
claim that MCC’s policies and procedures require its employees to act in a
“prescribed and mandatory fashion and without discretion.” The corrections officers
asserted official immunity in their motion to dismiss. The district court disagreed,
stating the complaint plausibly alleges that the MCC policy mandating cell checks
met the ministerial duty exception to official immunity. The corrections officers
appeal.
This court reviews de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss based on
immunity. Hager v. Arkansas Dept. of Health, 735 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2013).
“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the factual allegations in the
complaint are accepted as true and viewed most favorably to the plaintiff.” Id.
The Supreme Court of Missouri has cautioned courts “not to construe [official
immunity] too narrowly lest they frustrate the need for relieving public servants of

-- 3 of 8 --

-4-
the threat of burdensome litigation.” State ex rel. Love v. Cunningham, 689 S.W.3d
489, 495 (Mo. banc 2024). Missouri officers are immune from suit when they are
acting “within the scope of [their] authority and without malice.” State ex rel. Alsup
v. Kanatzar, 588 S.W.3d 187, 191 (Mo. banc 2019). “A plaintiff must plead facts
establishing an exception to official immunity.” State ex rel. Morales v. Alessi, 679
S.W.3d 467, 471 (Mo. banc 2023), quoting Stephens v. Dunn, 453 S.W.3d 241, 251
(Mo. App. 2014). “Absent these allegations, the pleadings are insufficient to state a
claim which is not barred by the doctrine of official immunity as a matter of law.”
Id., quoting State ex rel. Twiehaus v. Adolf, 706 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Mo. banc 1986).
Coffelt’s parents do not dispute that the corrections officers are public
officers, or that they acted without malice. Thus, unless the complaint establishes
an exception through factual allegations, official immunity applies. See Forester v.
May, 671 S.W.3d 383, 387 (Mo. banc 2023). Coffelt’s parents argue that the MCC
policy mandating that the corrections officers visually check on Coffelt three times
per hour, or every 20 minutes, is a ministerial duty that the corrections officers failed
to do. “Official immunity does not apply ‘when a public officer fails to perform a
ministerial duty required of him by law.’” Morales, 679 S.W.3d at 471, quoting
Alsup, 588 S.W.3d at 191.
A ministerial act is one that is merely “clerical.” Alsup, 588 S.W.3d at 191.
A “ministerial duty compels a task of such a routine and mundane nature that it is
likely to be delegated to subordinate officials . . . . [It] is one in which a certain act
is to be performed ‘upon a given state of facts in a prescribed manner…without
regard to the public official’s judgment or opinion’. . . . Thus, the central question is
whether there is any room whatsoever for variation in when and how a particular
task can be done. If so, that task – by definition – is not ministerial.” Id., quoting
State ex rel. Forgrave v. Hill, 198 S.W. 844, 846 (Mo. banc 1917) (emphasis added).
In the complaint, Coffelt’s parents assert that the corrections officers “were
negligent and derelict in the performance of their ministerial duties” because they
failed to check on Coffelt “3 times per hour, or every 20 minutes.” The parents must

-- 4 of 8 --

-5-
affirmatively establish – through pleaded factual allegations – that an exception
applies. It is not sufficient simply to allege that the corrections officers, by not
following a department policy, violated a ministerial duty. See Love, 689 S.W.3d at
496 (“whether a rule, policy, procedure, statute, or regulation may create a
mandatory duty to act is not the relevant inquiry for deciding whether a duty is
ministerial. Instead, the pertinent inquiry is whether the nature of the act itself is
ministerial or clerical.”).
Coffelt’s parents do argue that the MCC cell check policy at issue is a rote,
time-based obligation. They stress that it prescribes when the check must occur
(three times per hour, or every 20 minutes), and how it must be done (a visual check).
They conclude that the policy mandates when and how this duty is to be performed,
and that the duty is clerical in nature and therefore ministerial. However, a
ministerial act is a “rubber stamp” duty, leaving no room for “even slight” discretion.
Morales, 679 S.W.3d at 472-731. If an act “could have been completed in various
ways by various people,” it is not ministerial. Love, 689 S.W.3d at 496. The policy
here gives the officer discretion in conducting the checks. While the policy has a
general “when” of “three times per hour, or every 20 minutes,” it does not dictate
one manner “how” the officer must conduct the check, allowing discretion and
variation. See Cady v. City of Malden, 694 S.W.3d 616, 620 (Mo. App. 2024)
(holding that the required video monitoring of inmates reflects “discretionary
decision making, such as capable of being performed in different manners by
different individuals”). “Tasks that can be completed partially or through different
1Morales illustrates the narrow scope of the ministerial exception and largely
governs our disposition of this case. In that case, the Missouri Supreme Court
concluded that a mandatory treatment plan requiring that hospital staff check every 30
minutes on a patient in a state medical facility did not impose a ministerial duty. 679
S.W.3d at 473 (concluding that “all of the tasks” in the treatment plan, including the
checking requirement, “required staff to use discretion” and thus “the ministerial
exception does not apply.”). Accordingly, the Court affirmed that hospital staff
members who had allegedly failed to check on a patient for over two hours prior to his
death nonetheless remained entitled to official immunity against a wrongful death
claim.

-- 5 of 8 --

-6-
methods are not ministerial.” Morales, 679 S.W.3d at 473 (holding that the
(violated) requirements to check on a patient every 30 minutes (and take specific
acts every two hours) were not ministerial because employees had to use discretion
about the need for, and type of, additional care). In fact, Coffelt’s parents allege in
their complaint that officers are required to “properly assess, evaluate, and manage
inmates with physical and mental health conditions,” and report “inmates who are
acting suspiciously, erratically, or suicidal.” These requirements highlight the
discretionary nature of the checks. Since officers are required to use judgment in
doing checks, the act is discretionary. See Hall v. Woodruff, 121 F.4th 1155, 1158
(8th Cir. 2024); A.H. v. St. Louis Cnty., 891 F.3d 721, 729 (8th Cir. 2018) (holding
that any action after a glance during a cell-check by a corrections officer was “an
exercise of her discretion that is shielded by official immunity”). Official immunity
bars Count II against the corrections officers.
II.
Count V of the complaint alleges deliberate indifference to the risk of suicide
under § 1983. Coffelt’s parents allege that the corrections officers were responsible
for Coffelt’s custody and safety. They state there was a substantial and known risk
that he would harm himself, that the corrections officers were aware of this risk, and
with “deliberate indifference to the substantial risk of harm to Decedent,” the
corrections officers failed to properly assess and protect Coffelt. The complaint
concludes that as a direct and proximate result, he died. The corrections officers
asserted qualified immunity in their motion to dismiss. The district court disagreed.
“This court reviews de novo the denial of a motion to dismiss based on qualified
immunity.” Hager, 735 F.3d at 1013. “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), the factual allegations in the complaint are accepted as true and viewed
most favorably to the plaintiff.” Id.
“Prisoners have a clearly established constitutional right to be protected from
the known risks of suicide and to have their serious medical needs attended to . . . .
The Eighth Amendment prohibits jail officials from acting with deliberate

-- 6 of 8 --

-7-
indifference towards risks of suicide.” Whitney v. City of St. Louis, 887 F.3d 857,
860 (8th Cir. 2018). However, “qualified immunity shields government officials
performing discretionary functions from civil liability unless their conduct violates
clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.” Luckert v. Dodge Cnty., 684 F.3d 808, 817 (8th Cir. 2012).
“In the jail suicide context, qualified immunity is appropriate when a plaintiff has
failed to show that his jailers have acted in deliberate indifference to the risk of his
suicide.” Id. “Whether an official was deliberately indifferent requires both an
objective and a subjective analysis.” Whitney, 887 F.3d at 860. To prevail on their
deliberate indifference claim, Coffelt’s parents must show that the corrections
officers (1) “had actual knowledge that [Coffelt] had a substantial risk of suicide and
(2) [they] failed to take reasonable measures to abate that risk.” Id.
Coffelt’s parents first argue that the corrections officers had actual knowledge
of a substantial risk of suicide. The complaint asserts generally that the corrections
officers were aware of his mental health, his medication regime, his segregation
order, and his medical care leading up to his administrative segregation and his
eventual suicide. The complaint attributes this actual knowledge to “Decedent’s
prior records” documenting three suicide attempts by hanging. However, the
complaint also states that the corrections officers failed to review Coffelt’s prior
records. These contradictory factual allegations do not plausibly allege that the
medical records gave actual knowledge of a substantial risk of suicide. See Clark v.
Solem, 628 F.2d 1120, 1121 (8th Cir. 1980) (upholding dismissal of conclusory,
contradictory allegations in a § 1983 action); Whitney, 887 F.3d at 860 (upholding
dismissal of a complaint against a correctional officer that does not allege that the
officer had been relayed information about an inmate’s suicidal thoughts).
Even if it can be inferred that the corrections officers had some knowledge of
an obvious risk of suicide, Coffelt’s parents must further allege that their behavior
was objectively “so inadequate as to be deliberately indifferent to the risk.” Luckert,
684 F.3d at 818. The parents argue that the complaint alleges sufficient facts about
Coffelt’s suicide risk that were known and obvious to the corrections officers, but

-- 7 of 8 --

-8-
they nonetheless failed to protect him. They emphasize that Coffelt was placed in
administrative segregation in part “for his own safety.” However, the complaint also
states that the segregation order was issued not merely for his own safety, but for
any of three reasons: because of “an immediate security risk,” an “urgent need to
separate the offender from others for his/her own safety or that of others,” or “for
the security and good order of the institution.” The complaint further alleges that
before being placed in administrative segregation, an LPN evaluated Coffelt and
indicated his existing medical/mental health conditions were being treated by dose-
by-dose psychotropic medications, that his demeanor was quiet, and that he should
not be placed on suicide watch. The corrections officers were not deliberately
indifferent to the risk of suicide even if they acted negligently while he was in
administrative segregation. See Luckert, 684 F.3d at 818-19 (finding no deliberate
indifference to inmate on suicide watch, due to the actual practice of a 30-minute
watch, rather than the 20-minute watch in the jail’s policy); Gregoire v. Class, 236
F.3d 413, 416-19 (8th Cir. 2000) (finding no deliberate indifference where prison
employee did not check on inmate until 40 minutes after receiving affirmative notice
of intent to commit suicide); Hott v. Hennepin Cnty., 260 F.3d 901, 904-08 (8th Cir.
2001) (finding no deliberate indifference where jail official did not discover inmate’s
body for hours, despite policy of half-hour checks, because plaintiff did not make a
showing of actual knowledge that inmate posed a serious risk of harm to himself.)
Because the complaint did not properly plead both the subjective and objective
elements of a deliberate indifference claim, the district court erred in denying the
motion to dismiss on the grounds of qualified immunity.
* * * * * * *
The denial of the corrections officers’ motion to dismiss Counts II and V of
the complaint is reversed, and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
______________________________

-- 8 of 8 --