Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
No Liability for Death of Jail Inmate Placed in Cell With Volatile Schizophrenic
Panel Says Deputy Sheriff Could Not Have Foreseen Fatal Beating Given That Slayer, Though He Yelled at Guards, Had Not Evinced Hostility Toward Cellmate
By a MetNews Staff Writer
There is no liability on the part of a San Bernardino County sheriff’s deputy for failing to protect a mentally ill inmate of a jail who was placed in a cell with a man suffering from schizophrenia, who had been engaged in bellicose behavior, and one night brutally beat the victim to death, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared.
A memorandum opinion, filed Wednesday, affirms a summary judgment granted by District Court Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of California.
Although the estate of the decedent, Michael McCormack, and his widow, Melinda Jacobson McCormack, had brought a civil rights suit against the county, the Sheriff’s Department and numerous others, it was only the summary judgment in favor of the deputy, Brandon Enriquez, that was appealed. It was Enriquez who, on Aug, 31, 2020, in conducting a check of the cells, at 12:09 a.m. found inmate Sandro Rivera puffing and perspiring.
Upon inquiry as to his condition, Rivera admitting having killed McCormack, whose body was then spotted.
Rivera had been placed in the cell with McCormack eight days earlier. A mental health expert examined him on Aug. 15 and later recited that he “had volatile behavior and yelled at deputies and inmates.”
Allegations of Complaint
The first amended complaint set forth:
“At the time of the attack, Michael McCormack was a mentally ill 62-year old schizophrenic man, who suffered from severe emotional and mental disorders leaving him vulnerable and as prey to violent inmates. On August 31, 2020, Michael McCormack was brutally and repeatedly beaten by SANDRO XAVIER RIVERA. SANDRO XAVIER RIVERA was known by the present defendants to be aggressive and violent based on his violent history. SANDRO XAVIER RIVERA was a known violent predator who preyed on the weak and the most vulnerable. Because of these traits, his mental/medical condition, and his tendency toward violence, each defendant herein knew that SANDRO XAVIER RIVERA posed an imminent threat of violence and harm to all other inmates in his immediate vicinity.”
The plaintiffs alleged that Rivera’s medical charts and criminal records showed that he “had a long history of violent criminal conduct, that he was dangerous/violent upon arrival into custody, that he needed constant monitoring because of dangerous propensities and that he posed an actual threat to the any inmate that he would be housed with.”
Bernal’s Ruling
Bernal held:
“Given the complete lack of any indication of actual or potential violence, Enriquez could not have known that Rivera posed a substantial risk of serious harm to McCormack. Just because Rivera often yelled out from his cell did not put Enriquez on notice that Rivera would attack McCormack as he did.”
The government argued in its appellate brief:
“[T]he only behavior witnessed by Appellee Enriquez was that Rivera constantly yelled obscenities at his cell door largely directed outward towards jail staff, something not unusual in the mental health ward or even the jail generally.”
It added:
“Simply put, Rivera’s generally boisterous demeanor would not in and of itself be sufficient to place any reasonable deputy on notice that failure to move him would likely result in an attack of another inmate.
A panel—comprised of Ninth Circuit Judges Roopali H. Desai and Michelle T. Friedland, joined by District Court Judge Karen E. Schreier of the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation—agreed, saying:
“Appellants contend that Deputy Enriquez knew or should have known that Rivera posed a substantial risk of serious harm to McCormack because Rivera repeatedly stood at his cell door and loudly yelled expletives at guards and other inmates. Enriquez. however, never observed any conflict between McCormack and Rivera and reported that Rivera’s yelling was never directed at McCormack. Additionally, while McCormack and Rivera were housed together, there were no reported acts of violence or other observed tensions between the two. McCormack never reported any problems with Rivera to staff despite receiving regular treatment from medical staff. There were also no reports that Rivera was physically violent with staff or other inmates. Thus, no ‘reasonable officer in the circumstances would have appreciated [a] high degree of risk involved’ in housing McCormack with Rivera.”
The case is Estate of McCormack v. County of San Bernardino, 23-55744.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company