Gray, et al v. Tunica County MS, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 3, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 03-60761
_______________________
CHRISTINA BELL GRAY, The Estate
of Clarence Leon Bell By and Through Its
Administratrix Christina Bell Gray;
MILTON BELL, Individually and as the Wrongful
Death Heirs of Clarence Leon Bell, Deceased;
CHARLES C. BELL, Individually and as the Wrongful
Death Heirs of Clarence Leon Bell, Deceased;
GARMILLIA ANN BELL, Individually and as the Wrongful
Death Heirs of Clarence Leon Bell, Deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
TUNICA COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; LEMUEL GLEN WELLINGTON,
Individually and in His Official Capacity as Jailor of
Tunica County, Mississippi,
Defendants-Appellees.
______________________________________________________________________________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:02-cv-20
______________________________________________________________________________
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The heirs of Clarence Leon Bell filed this appeal from the
district court’s grant of summary judgment on the issue of
qualified immunity. The only issue raised by appellants is

-- 1 of 3 --

2
whether the district court erred when it concluded that defendant
Wellington was entitled to qualified immunity in his individual
capacity. Specifically, the issue before us is to determine
whether, in light of the facts as viewed in the light most
favorable to the plaintiffs, the conduct of the individual
defendant was objectively unreasonable when applied against the
deliberate indifference standard. Jacobs v. West Feliciana
Sheriff’s Dep’t, 228 F.3d 388, 394 (5th Cir. 2000).
Appellants have alleged that Wellington failed to protect
decedent from suicide, thereby alleging a violation of decedent’s
clearly established constitutional right. See id. at 393; Hare
v. City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320, 329 (5th Cir. 1998)(“[I]t
should be noted that our holding does not insulate all public
officials from liability for suicides by pretrial detainees.”).
However, appellants have failed to demonstrate that Wellington’s
conduct was objectively unreasonable such that it reached the
level of deliberate indifference. See Jacobs, 228 F.3d at 394.
To the contrary, Wellington removed Bell’s shoes and socks,
placed him in a padded lunacy cell and instituted a suicide
watch.
Appellants argue that Wellington exhibited deliberate
indifference when he observed Bell unclothed and in a “frog-like”
position, yet failed to enter the cell to check on Bell’s status.
But the records reveal that Wellington was concerned enough to

-- 2 of 3 --

3
get the nurse to also observe Bell. Both Wellington and the
nurse concluded that Bell was sleeping and that they should not
enter the cell. This turned out to be a wrong conclusion.
Whether checking on Bell earlier would have saved his life is not
clear. This was an unfortunate situation. Appellants may have
established negligence, but the facts do not demonstrate that
Wellington’s conduct was such as to deprive him of qualified
immunity under the test set forth above. See Jacobs, 228 F.3d at
395 (“[A]n officer’s acts must constitute at least more than a
mere ‘oversight.’”)(citation omitted); Hare v. City of Corinth,
74 F.3d 633, 645 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc)(holding that negligent
inaction by a jail officer does not violate due process). It
should be noted that prior to Bell, no inmate had ever committed
suicide in the Tunica County Jail. Accordingly, the district
court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --