Action under 42 USC § 1983 asserting deliberate indifference to serious medical needs; Johnson v. Karnes; Estelle v. Gamble; Phillips v. Roane Cnty.; Farmer v. Brennan; Comstock v. McCray; Qualified immunity; Plumhoff v. Rickard; Mitchell v. Forsyth; Ortiz v. Jordan; Johnson v. Jones; Romo v. Largen; DiLuzio v. Village of Yorkville; Pearson v. Callahan; Whether it was “obvious” that there was a “strong likelihood” the detainee would attempt suicide; Gray v. City of Detroit; Barber v. City of Salem; Galloway v. Anuszkiewicz (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Horn v. Madison Cnty. Fiscal Court; Grabow v. County of Macomb (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Baker-Schneider v. Napoleon (Unpub. 6th Cir.); Crocker ex rel. Estate of Tarzwell v. County of Macomb (Unpub. 6th Cir.)

The court reversed the district court’s order denying defendants-police officers qualified immunity, concluding that the facts and inferences as found by the district court did not indicate a “strong likelihood” that the pretrial detainee (Tye) would commit suicide. Tye, an undercover police officer charged with drug trafficking, committed suicide in his cell while awaiting a preliminary hearing. Plaintiff-estate sued several police officers for deliberate indifference to Tye’s serious medical needs. The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. They argued that it erred by ruling that, accepting the version of facts most favorable to plaintiff, “a reasonable jury could find that they acted with deliberate indifference to Tye’s serious medical need.” Plaintiff had to establish a “sufficiently serious” need and that the officers knew about the need and disregarded or responded unreasonably to it. The court declined to consider whether there was a serious need in this case because plaintiff failed to show that it was “obvious that there was a ‘strong likelihood’” Tye would attempt suicide. The court noted that “it is not enough to establish that an official may have acted with deliberate indifference to some possibility of suicide, or even a likelihood of suicide; the test is a strong likelihood of suicide." Tye denied suicidal thoughts, was not on suicide watch, and did not have “a history of psychiatric issues.” A notation that he seemed “despondent” did not satisfy the “strong likelihood” standard. The court has previously held that “despondency following an arrest is normal and does not suggest a ‘strong likelihood’ of suicide.” As to plaintiff’s reliance on the fact Tye was a police officer, she did not cite any “case for the proposition that an inmate’s law enforcement background conveys a strong probability that he will attempt suicide[.]”