Peterson v. Washington County Jail

Background

Brandon Robert Peterson was held at the Washington County Jail from February 4 through May 24, 2018. He had bipolar disorder and contended that he had a serious mental illness before his arrest and throughout his detention. The record described self-harm, erratic and aggressive behavior, segregation, medication issues, care plans restricting privileges, and several uses or threatened uses of chemical spray, a restraint chair, and an FN-303 projectile weapon.

Peterson alleged unconstitutional conditions of confinement, excessive force, failure to intervene, deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, denial of counsel and access to the courts, municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, and state-law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss and for summary judgment. Peterson moved for partial summary judgment on whether he had a serious medical need and whether certain individuals were final policymakers for purposes of municipal liability.

Motion to Dismiss

The court rejected defendants’ argument that Peterson had failed to plead his constitutional claims under the correct amendment. It held that he had sufficiently pleaded claims under the Eighth Amendment, so defendants’ motion was denied as to those claims. The court also ruled that Peterson’s claims were not barred by the Prison Litigation Reform Act because defendants had not properly pleaded exhaustion as an affirmative defense and Peterson was civilly committed, rather than a prisoner, when he filed suit.

The court dismissed Claims V and VI, concerning denial of counsel and access to the courts, with prejudice because Peterson’s allegations did not adequately explain how the alleged restrictions harmed his litigation. It dismissed Counts VII and VIII, involving the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act, with prejudice. The court held that medical-treatment decisions alone could not support those claims and that Peterson had not identified a specific program or benefit to which he was denied meaningful access because of his disability.

The court dismissed all individual claims against Sheriff Dan Starry, Officer Dan Rein, Officer John Roberto, and Officer Garrett Kleinendorst with prejudice, and those defendants were terminated as parties. The court declined to dismiss claims against John Warneke, Nurse Stephanie Kaphing, Officer De La Rosa, Officer Rebecca Dyck, Sergeant David Frantsi, Officer Jennifer Glassmaker, and Officer Vincent Scheele for lack of personal involvement at that stage.

Peterson’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

The court granted Peterson summary judgment on the limited finding that he suffered from a serious medical need while at the Jail. This resolved only the objective part of his deliberate-indifference claim. The court did not decide whether particular defendants knew about that need and deliberately disregarded it; those issues were left for trial.

The court denied Peterson’s request to rule that Commander Roger Heinen, Nurses Christine Dresel and Stephanie Kaphing, and Doctors Mike Adams and Joel Jensen were final policymakers for municipal-liability purposes. The court found no clear showing at that stage that their challenged actions involved policymaking authority rather than discretionary decisions.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

The court analyzed Peterson’s constitutional claims under the Eighth Amendment for purposes of the motion, while leaving his precise custody status for final determination at trial. The court held that factual disputes remained about the six excessive-force incidents on February 19, February 23, February 25, March 24, May 1, and May 19, 2018. Those disputes included whether Peterson was complying, whether he posed a threat, whether force was objectively needed, and whether officers used force maliciously or out of frustration. Summary judgment was denied on those excessive-force claims.

Because factual disputes also remained about whether officers present during those incidents could have prevented excessive force, the court allowed Peterson’s related failure-to-intervene claims to proceed to trial.

The court denied summary judgment on Peterson’s deliberate-indifference claims against Commander Heinen, Stephanie Kaphing, and Melinda Leibel. It found evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that they knew about Peterson’s serious mental illness but failed to ensure an adequate level of care. The court granted summary judgment on those claims insofar as they were asserted against the other individual defendants, because the record did not support a finding that those correctional officers were deliberately indifferent to Peterson’s medical needs.

The court denied summary judgment on Peterson’s conditions-of-confinement claim. Viewing the evidence in Peterson’s favor, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that the combined conditions, restrictions, deprivation of necessities, segregation, and care plans amounted to serious deprivations and deliberate indifference. The court deferred ruling on the remaining municipal-liability and state-law claims. It stated that the state-law claims would remain only to the extent they paralleled surviving federal claims.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. Claims V and VI, Counts VII and VIII, and the individual claims against Sheriff Starry, Officer Rein, Officer Roberto, and Officer Kleinendorst were dismissed with prejudice. Excessive-force claims were limited to the six listed incidents. Deliberate-indifference claims were dismissed with prejudice against individual defendants other than Commander Heinen, Stephanie Kaphing, and Melinda Leibel. All other claims remained, with state-law claims remaining insofar as they paralleled surviving federal claims.

The court granted in part and denied in part Peterson’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment: it granted the limited finding that Peterson suffered from a serious medical need and denied the motion otherwise. The order was temporarily filed under seal, with the parties given fifteen days to propose redactions.