In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 17-1668 LUCINDA LOVETT and MICHAEL LOVETT, Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Daniel J. Martin, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LANDON HERBERT and ZACHARY OVERTON, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. No. 15 C 63 — William T. Lawrence, District Judge. ____________________ ARGUED APRIL 20, 2018 — DECIDED OCTOBER 29, 2018 ____________________ Before SYKES, and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and DURKIN, Dis- trict Judge.* DURKIN, District Judge. On December 13, 2013, Daniel Martin * The Honorable Thomas M. Durkin, Northern District of Illinois, sit- ting by designation. 2 No. 17-1668 was arrested for drunk driving and taken to the jail in Clay County, Indiana. While there, Martin fell out of an upper bunk bed, suffering injuries that eventually led to his death several months later. Martin’s estate sued Clay County cor- rectional officers Landon Herbert and Zachary Overton who were on duty at the jail that night. The district court denied the Officers’ motion for summary judgment on qualified im- munity. The Officers appeal that order. I. Background When he arrived at the jail, Martin was booked by Officers Herbert and Overton. Officer Herbert was familiar with Mar- tin from previous alcohol-related arrests. Martin’s booking paperwork noted that he had a blood-alcohol content of 0.16%. (When he was subsequently taken to the hospital, his blood-alcohol content was measured at 0.22%.) The district court found that Officer Herbert “smelled alcohol on Martin, but neither [Officer] Herbert nor [Officer] Overton observed any slurred speech or stumbling on Martin’s part.” In state- ments made to a detective investigating the incident, Officer Herbert said he could tell Martin was intoxicated “because he seemed slow,” whereas Officer Overton said that if he had not smelled alcohol then he would not have known that Martin was intoxicated. The district court also noted that “[a]fter Martin was booked in and fingerprinted, he asked to retrieve a phone number from his cell phone so that he could arrange for his dog to be fed.” The receiving area of the jail, where new arrestees are tem- porarily detained, has six two-person holding cells (cells 1-6), one padded cell, one single-person medical isolation cell, and No. 17-1668 3 a “drunk tank” with a capacity for 14 people.1 The two-person cells each contain a bunk bed. On the night in question, cell 1 was occupied by a male inmate from another county who was a safety concern; cell 2 was occupied by two male inmates; cell 3 held one female county inmate; cell 4 held one male inmate; cell 5 held one female federal inmate; and cell 6 held one male county inmate who was a safety concern.2 The drunk tank was occupied by six or nine federal immigration detainees,3 and did not contain bunk beds. The medical cell was occu- pied, but the padded cell was not. Officer Overton decided to place Martin in cell 4, which was occupied ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals