Deliberate indifference in a pretrial detainee suicide case; Qualified immunity; The “clearly established” right prong;The pre-Brawner v Scott Cnty test; The “strong likelihood” test; Lawler ex rel Lawler v Hardeman Cnty; Municipal liability; Monell v Department of Soc Servs

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court affirmed the grant of qualified immunity to defendants-corrections officers where plaintiff could not establish that they believed there was a “strong likelihood” that the decedent (Bliven) would commit suicide. After responding to his phone call and learning that he had been shooting his gun out the window, the police had Bliven committed to the hospital for inpatient mental-health treatment. He later admitted shooting at a neighbor’s home with an air rifle. State troopers arrested him and recommended that he be charged with reckless discharge of a firearm, aggravated assault, and meth possession. He received an intake interview at defendant-Ontonagon County’s jail, where he stated that he was not considering suicide, that he had never attempted suicide, and that he did not intend to harm himself in jail. The interviewing officer (one of the defendants) stated that he was left with no reason to think that Bliven would harm himself, and a computer program labeled him as a minimum or medium risk based on Bliven’s answers to the screening questions. Bliven was placed in a cell that had been normally used to house women because the regular, stripped-down detox cell was unavailable. Days later he was found hanging from an electric fan cord in his cell. His daughter, plaintiff, sued the officers for deliberate indifference and the County under Monell. The district court granted the officers and the County summary judgment. On appeal, the court considered the officers’ qualified immunity defense. Applying the pre-Brawner deliberate indifference test, it held that plaintiff failed to show “both that an officer knew ‘of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exist[ed]’ and that the officer personally drew this ‘inference.’” Plaintiff also had to show that the officer had unreasonably responded to “the known risk.” The court reviewed cases involving suicide that hold that it must be shown “an officer believeed that there was a ‘strong likelihood’ that an inmate would commit suicide.” Looking at each officer in turn, the court held that plaintiff failed to establish the subjective element. It noted that “a ‘should have’ standard does not suffice to hold them liable.” Rather, they “must have actually perceived that risk.” Her claim against the County also failed where she could not show that it was a “moving force behind” any violation.