Vivian Jackson, et al v. Sheriff, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-11746
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cv-00568-WTH-TBS
VIVIAN JACKSON,
Personal Representative of the Estate
of Darius Johnell James,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
SHERIFF,
Marion County, Florida, et.al.,
Defendants,
PRESTON WEST,
RONALD BURNETTE,
STANLEY ROSS,
MARK MCEWAN,
MICHAEL FORTE,
JOSEPH LAVERTUE,
DONALD THORSBERG,
in their individual capacities,
Defendants - Appellants.
Case: 12-11746 Date Filed: 04/08/2013 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(April 8, 2013)
Before PRYOR, JORDAN and KLEINFELD,* Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court summarily denied the motions for summary judgment filed
by several correctional officers against the complaint of Vivian Jackson, as the
personal representative of the estate of Darius Johnell James, that the officers had
been deliberately indifferent to the risk that James would commit suicide. The
officers argued to the district court that they are entitled to qualified immunity. In
its order, the district court stated that, “[u]pon due consideration,” the motions for
summary judgment were denied “due to the presence of disputed issues of material
fact.” The order provided no analysis of facts or law. Seven of the correctional
officers, Preston West, Ronald Burnett, Stanley Ross, Mark McEwan, Michael
Forte, Joseph Lavertue, and Donald Thorsberg, appealed.
We have explained before that “orders should contain sufficient explanations
of their rulings . . . to provide this Court with an opportunity to engage in
meaningful appellate review.” Danley v. Allen, 480 F.3d 1090, 1091 (11th Cir.
* Honorable Andrew J. Kleinfeld, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by
designation.
Case: 12-11746 Date Filed: 04/08/2013 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
2007). The summary denial of the officers’ motions to dismiss “wholly fail[s] to
provide this Court with an opportunity to conduct meaningful appellate review.”
Id. at 1092. Review of the record and application of the law on an issue of
qualified immunity is the responsibility of the district court in the first instance,
and given the number of defendants and their different roles as correctional
officers, we cannot conduct meaningful appellate review. Id. We VACATE the
order that denied the motions for a summary judgment in favor of West, Burnett,
Ross, McEwan, Forte, Lavertue, and Thosberg, and REMAND this matter to the
district court for that court to enter a reasoned order that addresses whether these
seven officers are entitled to a summary judgment based on review of the relevant
facts and applicable law.
Case: 12-11746 Date Filed: 04/08/2013 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --