Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 1 of 38
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`VERLON ELIZABETH THOMPSON,
`Administratrix of the Estate of Jeremy
`Lee Thompson,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`BRANDON ROGERS, et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No. 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`INTRODUCTION
`This case presents a complicated timeline of events spanning over a twenty-
`four-hour period
`involving Jeremy Lee Thompson who died
`from a
`methamphetamine overdose. His grandmother, as administratrix of his estate
`(“Estate”), filed this Fourteenth Amendment deliberate indifference action against
`two groups of law enforcement officials – (1) Geneva Police Department Officers
`Brandon Rogers and Ethan Hendrix (collectively “Officer Defendants”); and (2)
`Geneva County Jailers Roland Miller and Andrew German (collectively “Jailer
`Defendants”) – who interacted with Thompson in the hours preceding his death.
`Discovery now at an end, the Defendants have moved for summary judgment. The
`motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision. For the reasons set forth below, the
`motions are due to be GRANTED.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 2 of 38
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The parties
`
`do not contest personal jurisdiction or venue, and there are adequate allegations to
`support both. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`
`A court must grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
`matter of law” based on materials in the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), (c). A genuine
`dispute of material fact exists if, based on the evidence, “a reasonable jury could
`return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
`242, 248 (1986). Whether a fact is material is determined by the applicable
`substantive law. Id. And a dispute is not genuine if it is unsupported by evidence
`or only created by evidence that is “merely colorable or is not significantly
`probative.” Id. at 249 (citations omitted). At this stage, a court views all evidence,
`and draws all reasonable inferences, “in the light most favorable” to the nonmoving
`party. Jean-Baptiste v. Gutierrez, 627 F.3d 816, 820 (11th Cir. 2010). Even so,
`statements of belief are insufficient to create issues of fact for purposes of defeating
`a summary judgment motion. Pace v. Capobianco, 283 F.3d 1275, 1278–79 (11th
`Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4) (“An affidavit or declaration used to support
`or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would
`be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to
`testify on the matters stated.”); see also Macuba v. Deboer, 193 F.3d 1316, 1322–
`23 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)] applies to testimony given on
`deposition.”).
`When the record clearly contradicts the nonmovant’s version of the facts, “a
`court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion
`for summary judgment.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380–81 (2007) (“The Court
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 3 of 38
`
`of Appeals should not have relied on such visible fiction; it should have viewed the
`facts in the light depicted by the videotape.”); see Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843,
`848 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[W]e draw . . . inferences [in the nonmovant’s favor] only to
`the extent supportable by the record.” (internal quotations marks omitted) (quoting
`Scott, 550 U.S. at 381 n.8)). And nor should a court adopt a nonmovant’s version of
`facts that are taken out of context where the “record . . . as a whole could not lead a
`rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Johnson v. Niehus, 491 F.
`App’x 945, 950–51 (11th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting Scott, 550 U.S. at 380)
`(refusing to “cherry pick facts from [nonmovant’s] story which support his version
`of the events and which [could] be reconciled with the otherwise undisputed
`evidence” (emphasis omitted)); see also Tracy v. Fla. Atl. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 980 F.3d
`799, 810–11 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming denial of renewed judgment as a matter of
`law where the nonmovants “cherry-pick[ed]” evidence in support of “his theory of
`the case, while ignoring the substantial body of evidence” was “unpersuasive”). “At
`the summary judgment stage, a nonmoving party ‘must offer some hard evidence
`showing that its version of the events is not wholly fanciful.’” Johnson, 491 F. App’x
`at 950 (quoting Jeffreys v. City of New York, 426 F.3d 549, 554 (2d Cir. 2005)).
`BACKGROUND
`The events involving Jeremy Thompson occurred during a twenty-four-hour
`period on May 20 and May 21, 2022, and they are largely evidenced by video footage
`from the Officer Defendants’ body cameras, as well as the video footage from the
`jail. Because the issues presented in the Defendants’ summary judgment motions
`turn on the totality of the events over that period, a detailed timeline of the events is
`necessary.
`A. May 20, 2022
`Officers Brandon Rogers and Ethan Hendrix first encountered Jeremy
`Thompson on the evening (around 9:00 p.m.) of May 20, 2022, when Thompson’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 4 of 38
`
`stepfather, Jeff Schmidt, while in his truck with Thompson, flagged Officer Hendrix
`down and told Hendrix that Thompson was frantic and hallucinating. (Doc. 52-6 at
`20:70:9–20.) Schmidt told Hendrix that he was scared Thompson “might not be
`alive the next day” if Thompson did not receive help. (Doc. 52-6 at 29:107:18–23,
`108:1; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 42.) Officer Rogers also responded to the scene soon after.
`(Doc. 40-24 at 40:11–15.)
`During their interaction with Thompson, Thompson was communicative,
`ambulatory, calm yet animated in his mannerisms, and cooperative with requests.
`(See generally docs. 40-4, 40-5.) While speaking with Officers Rogers and Hendrix,
`Thompson repeatedly voiced complaints about his family, including his stepfather
`and his “baby momma.” (Id.) Thompson repeatedly voiced concerns about going
`to jail, stating that he had never been to prison, that he did not want to go to prison,
`and that his family was trying to set him up for drugs to send him to prison. (Id.)
`Based on their interaction with Thompson, neither officer thought that
`Thompson was intoxicated or in medical distress, (doc. 40-24 at 30:5–8, 36:7–16;
`doc. 40-25 at 26:12–22; 27:7–17), nor did they believe there was enough evidence
`to arrest Thompson that evening (doc. 40-24 at 37:8–10). When questioned in his
`deposition about the interaction, Schmidt testified that in his opinion, when
`Thompson saw the two officers, Thompson “tried to keep [his behavior] under a
`little bit of control,” but, according to Schmidt, Thompson still exhibited his frantic
`behavior for the officers. (Doc. 52-6 at 21:74:5–7.) The encounter ended with
`Thompson walking down the road rather than returning to Schmidt’s vehicle.1 (Doc.
`40-24 at 43:11–14.)
`
`
`1 Schmidt, of course, could have driven Thompson to the hospital if he believed that Thompson
`was suffering from a medical emergency. He did not do so, instead choosing to flag down law
`enforcement.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 5 of 38
`
`About an hour later, Officer Rogers encountered Thompson again, this time
`at a local gas station where Thompson was drinking a beer in public. (Doc. 40-7.)
`Thompson was still communicative, ambulatory, and cooperative, but also still
`animated in his mannerisms, agitated with his family, and fearful of going to jail.
`(See id.) Thompson told Officer Rogers that his stepfather “acted crazy on him”
`earlier that day, that he “just wanted to go home,” and that he did not know he could
`not drink his beer in public. (Id.) Thompson denied using any drugs. (Id.) Officer
`Rogers then chose to perform a field sobriety test, which Thompson passed. (Id.)
`Thompson thanked Officer Rogers for the “two chances” he had given Thompson
`that night, to which Officer Rogers stated, “strike three, you’re out” and instructed
`Thompson to leave the gas station premises.2 (Id.)
`B. May 21, 2022: The Next Day
`1.
`The Arrest
`The next day, Officers Rogers and Hendrix were on patrol together when they
`received a dispatch call from the Geneva County E-911 Communications Center
`about a suspicious person. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 5; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 5.) The dispatch call
`stated the following:
`Got a call at the Dollar General on North 27. The caller said there’s a
`white male with sandy-colored hair driving a Honda Accord. When he
`first pulled up, he was clutching his chest and mouthing the words
`“Help me!” When they asked him if he was okay, he was like talking
`out of his head. I asked the clerk there at the Dollar General if there
`was actually somebody there. She said there’s somebody there in a car
`with their feet sticking out. So need you to check that out.
`(Doc. 40-1; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 5; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 5.) Though she had the option of
`doing so, the dispatcher decided not to send an ambulance to the Dollar General.
`(Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 5; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 5.) According to the Officer Defendants, because
`
`
`2 The inference being that if they saw Thompson again, he would go to jail.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 6 of 38
`
`the “Communications Center always dispatches an ambulance to all medical calls,”
`they did not interpret this call as a medical call. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 7; Doc. 40-20 at ¶
`7.)
`The Officer Defendants arrived at the Dollar General store and activated their
`
`body-worn cameras at 7:09 p.m. (Doc. 40-2; Doc. 40-3; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 8; Doc. 40-
`20 at ¶ 8.) There, they encountered Thompson again, their third encounter with him
`within the last twenty-four hours.
`They interacted with Thompson for around twenty minutes before they
`arrested him for public intoxication. (See Doc. 40-2; Doc. 40-3.) During their entire
`encounter with Thompson in the parking lot, Thompson did not clutch his chest, and
`he was conscious, alert, compliant with requests, communicative, and ambulatory.
`(Doc. 40-2; Doc. 40-3.) Like he was the day before, Thompson was animated in his
`mannerisms and still agitated and upset with his family, particularly his “baby’s
`momma.” (See Doc. 40-2; Doc. 40-3.) Though they suspected that he was a drug
`user based on their previous encounters with him, (doc. 40-19 at ¶ 10; doc. 40-20 at
`¶ 10), the Officer Defendants did not observe any signs of medical distress or a
`medical emergency,3(doc. 40-19 at ¶ 11; doc. 40-20 at ¶ 11).
`Also of note, even though the dispatcher reported that a caller had observed
`Thompson clutching his chest and saying help me, when the Officer Defendants first
`approached Thompson, he was not clutching his chest. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 11; Doc.
`40-20 at ¶ 11.) Thompson discussed his previous interaction with the Officer
`Defendants and his reason for being in the Dollar General parking lot. (Doc. 40-2;
`Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 12; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 12.) At this time, Thompson did not mention
`experiencing a heart attack, stroke, or any other medical emergency, nor did he
`request medical assistance.
`
`
`3 The videos show that Thompson acted very similar to how he had acted the previous evening.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 7 of 38
`
`The Officer Defendants did, however, smell alcohol on Thompson. (Doc. 40-
`19 at ¶ 12; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 13.) While Officer Rodgers looked inside Thompson’s
`vehicle, Officer Hendrix patted Thompson down. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 13; Doc. 40-20
`at ¶ 13.) Thompson’s breathing quickened during this interaction, and Officer
`Hendrix told Thompson, “Breathe. Breathe, man. You’re freaking out. I don’t like
`it.” (Doc. 40-3 at 02:10.) Immediately after Hendrix’s instruction, Officer Rogers
`asked Thompson how many beers he had consumed as there was an opened beer can
`in the vehicle’s center console. (Doc. 40-2 at 02:08; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 13.) Thompson
`answered, “Four, five, six—I don’t know.” (Doc. 40-2 at 02:08; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 13.)
`Importantly, Thompson denied using any drugs. (Doc. 40-2.)
`Next, Thompson gave permission to Officer Hendrix to search his wallet and
`to Officer Rogers to search the vehicle. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 14; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 14.) The
`search began, and as it proceeded, Thompson stated that he thought he was having a
`panic attack, to which Officer Hendrix again instructed him to breathe. (Doc. 40-3
`at 03:20; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 16.) Thompson then asked for a cloth for his head and
`stated, “Help me. I’m about to fucking have a heart attack and die, dude.”4 (Doc. 40-
`3 at 03:20; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 16.) Officer Hendrix asked, “Why? What’s wrong with
`you?” Thompson answered, “My whole body hurts.” (Doc. 40-2 at 03:45; Doc. 40-
`3 at 03:20; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 15; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 16.)
`After Thompson’s last comment, Officer Rogers paused his search to ask
`Thompson if he was okay and whether Thompson had consumed any drugs or
`alcohol. (Doc. 40-2 at 03:45; Doc. 40-3 at 03:50; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 15.) Thompson did
`
`
`4 Officer Rogers testified that he never heard Thompson’s comment about a heart attack but that
`he would not have done anything differently based on his observations that Thompson was not in
`medical distress. (Doc. 40-24 at 76:12–23–77:1–10.) He then testified that had he heard
`Thompson’s comment about a possible heart attack and the comment about his whole body
`hurting, Rogers may have contacted EMS at that time. (Doc. 40-24 at 149:18–23–150:1.)
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 8 of 38
`
`not answer the question; he instead turned to wave both arms at a passing SUV and
`stated, “Come get me,” while he motioned and pointed to himself. (Doc. 40-2 at
`03:45; Doc. 40-3 at 03:50.) Thompson identified the person as his aunt, but the driver
`rolled down her window and said that she did not know him. (Doc. 40-2 at 03:45;
`Doc. 40-3 at 04:00; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 16; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 17.)
`Based on their interactions and observations of him, the officers believed that
`Thompson was intoxicated, that he had lied about his physical symptoms to avoid
`arrest, and they did not think he was in medical distress. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 16; Doc.
`40-20 at ¶ 17.) Officer Rodgers then placed Thompson in handcuffs, verbalized that
`Thompson was “sweating bullets,” and informed Thompson that he was going to
`jail. (Doc. 40-2 at 04:30.) While he was being cuffed, Thompson told Officer
`Hendrix that it was dark and he was scared, but he then asked if the driver of the
`vehicle was old—a reference to whether the driver was his aunt.5 (Doc. 40-3 at
`04:20.)
`Thompson repeatedly asked Officer Hendrix to remove the handcuffs or place
`them in the front; Officer Hendrix refused, stating that this was for his safety. (Doc.
`40-3 at 04:50; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 19.) Thompson then climbed into the back of the
`police vehicle unassisted and allowed Officer Hendrix to remove his sunglasses and
`lanyard from his neck. (Doc. 40-3 at 05:10; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 19.) At this point,
`Thompson stated, “I think I’m having a fucking stroke, man.” (Doc. 40-3 at 05:10;
`Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 19; Doc. 40-2 at 08:00.) Officer Hendrix told Thompson that he
`was definitely not having a stroke but that he would contact medical. (Doc. 40-3 at
`05:10; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 19.) Hendrix believed Thompson’s stroke complaints were
`“B.S.” (Doc. 40-3 at 08:05; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 23.) Officer Rogers stated that
`
`5 Officer Hendrix’s body camera footage shows that Thompson is breathing heavier than when the
`officers first arrived, but he is still alert, cooperative, ambulatory, and communicative. (Doc. 40-3
`at 04:50.)
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 9 of 38
`
`Thompson would be fine. (Doc. 40-2 at 08:00.) According to the Officer
`Defendants, they had been trained on the FAST method of stroke recognition, and
`nothing they observed suggested a stroke. 6 (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 21; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 20.)
`The video footage shows that the officers discussed the likelihood of
`Thompson being under the influence of illegal substances, as Officer Rogers thought
`Thompson had “done more than marijuana,” (doc. 40-2 at 07:30; doc. 40-3 at 07:43),
`and Officer Hendrix expected that he would find a pipe within Thompson’s
`belongings during the search (doc. 40-2 at 07:30; doc. 40-3 at 07:40). The officers
`continued to search Thompson’s belongings, which contained several phones. (Doc.
`40-2; Doc. 40-3.) During the search, Officer Rodgers asked, “why does meth heads
`always got phones?” and “yea, he’s got dope somewhere.” (Doc. 40-2 at 08:20; Doc.
`40-3 at 08:05.) The footage also shows Rogers explaining his suspicions that
`Thompson had taken or possessed illegal substances: “The way he’s freaking out
`and the way he’s sweating—it’s hot out here, but it ain’t that hot.” (Doc. 40-2 at
`08:40.) They never found a pipe or any drugs other than possible marijuana residue
`and beer. (See Doc. 40-2; Doc. 40-3.)
`In Officer Rogers’s experience, excessive sweating was an indicator that an
`arrestee may have drugs in his system, but he was unaware that excessive sweating
`could indicate an adverse reaction to drug ingestion. (Doc. 40-24 at 62:10–21,
`63:16–21.) Though Rogers received the dispatch call for someone clutching their
`chest and mouthing the words, “help me” and he knew he was responding to a
`possible medical situation, upon investigation and his observations of Thompson’s
`behavior, Rogers did not think Thompson was experiencing a health concern. (Doc.
`
`
`According to the officers, their training on the FAST method stands for “Face, Arms, Speech,
`Time.” “F” involves examining a person’s face to see if it is drooping on one side. “A” is for an
`inability to raise both arms. “S” is for slurred speech. And “T” is a reminder to note the time that
`the symptoms appear. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 21; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 20.)
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 10 of 38
`
`40-24 at 67:1–20.) Based on these observations and Thompson’s false statements
`about the individual in the passing SUV, Rogers believed any medical complaints
`Thompson made were a way to avoid being taken to jail. (Doc. 40-24 at 78:3–16.)
`Rogers did suspect, however, that Thompson was under the influence of more than
`alcohol and that he had taken methamphetamine. (Doc. 40-24 at 64:21–23, 69:7–
`11.)
`
`Because Thompson tried to break out of the handcuffs on the way to the jail,
`the Officer Defendants called ahead to request that the jail staff have the restraint
`chair ready upon Thompson’s arrival. (Doc. 40-8; Doc 40-19 at ¶ 27.)
`2.
`Geneva County Jail
`Officers Rogers and Hendrix arrived with Thompson at the jail at 7:30 p.m.
`(Doc. 40-9; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 28; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 31.) Video evidence shows
`Thompson exiting the vehicle under his own power and walking into the jail without
`difficultly except for a stumble when he stepped off a curb. (Doc. 40-9.)
`When Thompson entered the jail, Jailer Miller did not observe any signs of
`medical distress. (Doc. 40-27 at 28:8–10.) In his deposition, he testified that
`Thompson “walked in the [j]ail just like eighty percent, ninety percent of the people”
`who are intoxicated. (Doc. 40-27 at 28:8–12.) The officers secured Thompson in
`a restraint chair at 7:34 p.m. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 29; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 32.) Still, at this
`point, neither officer saw signs of medical distress, and Thompson did not request
`medical treatment. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 29; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 32.)
`Next, Officer Rogers completed a handwritten arrest report and documented
`that he believed Thompson was under the effects of drugs and had been drinking.
`(Doc. 40-10; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 30.) Because of his belief that Thompson was
`intoxicated, Officer Rogers placed a twelve-hour hold on Thompson so that the jail
`staff would hold Thompson until he was sober. (Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 30; Doc. 40-10.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 11 of 38
`
`He did not, however, inform the jail staff of his suspicion that Thompson had taken
`methamphetamine. (Doc. 40-24 at 23:14–18.)
`Officer Hendrix completed the jail intake form. (Doc. 40-11.) This form
`asked for Thompson’s medical conditions and whether Thompson was under the
`influence. (Doc. 40-11.) Next to the blank for medical conditions, Officer Hendrix
`wrote, “weed apparently.” (Doc. 40-11.) And next to the blank for whether
`Thompson was under the influence, he wrote, “most likely meth: A Lot!” (Doc. 40-
`11; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 33.)
`At 7:47 p.m., Jailer German placed Thompson, who was already secured in
`the restraint chair, in the detox cell. (Doc. 40-12; Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 31; Doc. 40-20 at
`¶ 34; Doc. 40-23 at 22:1–6.) Because the detox cell is equipped with a video camera,
`Jailer Miller was able to consistently monitor Thompson while in the cell. (Doc. 40-
`27 at 44:9–17.) Both Jailer Defendants thought Thompson had been medically
`cleared before placing him in the restraint chair. (Doc. 40-23 at 23:23–24:1–2; Doc.
`40-27 at 135:2-8.) Once an inmate arrives at the jail, the booking jail officer has the
`discretion to call for EMS if that officer suspects a medical concern. (Doc. 40-27 at
`136:1-5.) Neither Miller nor German booked Thompson; another jailer booked
`Thompson and handled the paperwork and did not call EMS. (Doc. 40-23 at 50:13–
`14; Doc. 40-27 at 19:14–15.)
`Thompson remained in the restraint chair for almost two hours from 7:47 p.m.
`to 9:36 p.m. (Doc. 40-12.) When he first arrived in the cell, Thompson kicked his
`feet, was alert, communicative, and agitated. (Id.) The video shows Thompson
`repeatedly attempting to extract himself from the restraints. (Id.) Jailer Miller
`testified that he thought Thompson’s behavior was due to alcohol intoxication and
`equated the behavior to other intoxicated inmate behaviors he had observed before.
`(Doc. 40-27 at 80:7–15, 96:15–23.)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 12 of 38
`
` At 8:57 p.m., Jailer German entered the cell to readjust the restraint straps.
`(Doc. 40-12 at 1:11:10.) While there, German asked Thompson whether he had
`taken any drugs, (doc. 40-23 at 36:5–7, 37:11–15), but again Thompson denied drug
`use, instead stating that he had consumed beer. (Doc. 40-23 at 36:5–7, 37:11–15.)
`That said, Jailer German noticed Thompson’s excessive sweating and paleness, and
`that he just “didn’t look good,” so Jailer German notified Jailer Miller. (Doc. 40-23
`at 36:10–11, 39:4–5.)
`At 9:05 p.m., Jailers German and Miller entered the cell together. (Doc. 40-
`12 at 11:18:50.) Miller asked Thompson routine assessment questions, such as “are
`you okay?” (Doc. 40-27 at 106:10–13.) When Thompson did not respond although
`he was still moving, Miller called for an ambulance. (Doc. 40-27 at 106: 14–19; Doc.
`40-12 at 1:20:55.)
`Geneva Rescue Medics Taylor Floyd and Rod Utley (collectively “medics”)
`arrived at 9:14 p.m. At this time, Thompson was still moving and responding to
`painful stimuli, but over the course of their assessment, his movements slowed and
`tapered. (Doc. 40-12 at 1:28:06.) The medics assessed Thompson and suspected that
`he was under the influence of methamphetamine. (Doc. 40-21 at ¶ 8–9; Doc. 40-22
`at ¶ 9.) Utley thought Thompson was intoxicated, but he did not perceive that
`Thompson was in medical distress. (Doc. 40-21 at ¶ 10.) When Floyd asked
`Thompson what illegal substance he had ingested, Thompson again denied drug use
`and instead stated he had consumed beer. (Doc. 40-22 at ¶ 9.) When the medics
`took Thompson’s vitals, his heart rate was 162 beats per minute. (Doc. 40-21 at ¶
`11; Doc. 40-22 at ¶ 11.) With this knowledge, the medics transported Thompson to
`the hospital. (Doc. 40-21 at ¶ 13; Doc. 40-22 at ¶ 11.) By the time the Officer
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 13 of 38
`
`Defendants wheeled Thompson out of the cell at 9:35 p.m., Thompson’s eyes were
`closed and his arms and legs limp.7 (Doc. 40-12 at 1:48:28.)
`The Hospital and Autopsy
`3.
`Around 9:45 p.m., the medics transported Thompson to Wiregrass Hospital.
`(Doc. 40-19 at ¶ 34; Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 37.) Shortly after 11:00 p.m., a nurse noticed
`that Thompson’s breathing had stopped. Despite several minutes of resuscitation
`efforts, the emergency room physician pronounced Thompson dead at 11:20 p.m.
`(Doc. 40-20 at ¶ 39; Doc. 52-19 at 4.) The ER workup “was notable for signs of
`myocardial ischemia with an elevated troponin” level, an indicator that Thompson
`may have suffered a heart attack. (Doc. 52-8 at 4). The ER physician’s clinical
`impression noted that Thompson was intoxicated and had suffered an acute
`myocardial infarction and cardiopulmonary arrest with intoxication. (Doc. 52-19 at
`2.)
`
`Thompson’s body underwent an autopsy. The final toxicology report showed
`a large concentration of methamphetamine in Thompson’s blood and no alcohol.
`(Doc. 40-13 at 7.) According to the autopsy report, Thompson’s cause of death was
`declared as “[t]oxic effects of [m]ethamphetamine.” (Doc. 40-13 at 3.)
`C.
`Lawsuit
`On November 8, 2022, the Estate sued the Officer Defendants and the Jailer
`Defendants. In its operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint, the Estate
`claims that these four individuals violated Thompson’s Fourteenth Amendment
`rights because they were deliberately indifferent to Thompson’s serious medical
`needs. (Doc. 27 at 7.) In particular, the Estate claims that, while in the parking lot
`
`
`7 Outside the detox cell and before placing Thompson on the EMS stretcher, one of the medics
`administered an intramuscular injection of ketamine to subdue Thompson. (Doc. 40-27 at 119:13–
`22, 121:1–7; Doc. 40-23 at 86:1–2, 14–18 (observation made outside the detox cell); Doc. 43-20
`at 5.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 14 of 38
`
`at the Dollar General, Thompson said, “he was having a stroke, which is an
`objectively serious medical condition that would require treatment constituting a
`serious medical need” and that “methamphetamine overdose is an objectively
`serious medical condition that requires treatment constituting a serious medical
`need.” (Doc. 27 at 8.) The Estate argues that the Officer Defendants “disregarded
`[these risks of serious harm and Thompson’s dire medical needs] and acted with
`deliberate indifference by taking . . . Thompson to the drunk tank at the Geneva
`County [j]ail instead of the [e]mergency [r]oom.” (Doc. 27 at 8.)
`As to the Jailer Defendants, the Estate claims that they acted with deliberate
`indifference because they “admit[ed] [Thompson] to the jail and strapp[ed] him into
`a restraint chair in the drunk tank [instead of] insisting [that] he be transported to the
`hospital or immediately summoning emergency medical assistance” despite their
`knowledge of Thompson’s need for medical treatment for a likely methamphetamine
`overdose. (Doc. 27 at 9-10.) As to all of them, the Estate claims that had Thompson
`received timely medical treatment, his life could have been saved. (See doc. 27 at
`10–11.)
`Expert Witnesses and Their Opinions
`D.
`The parties have retained expert witnesses who primarily speak to issues
`involving methamphetamine toxicity and causation.
`According to Dr. Matthew Delany, an emergency medicine physician retained
`by the Estate, there is no established lethal amount of methamphetamine. Therefore,
`in Dr. Delany’s opinion, if Thompson had received medical attention earlier, his
`methamphetamine overdose was manageable and therefore survivable. (Doc. 52-8
`at 4–5; Doc. 40-26 at 40:14–23). Further, according to Dr. Delany, Thompson’s ER
`workup confirmed that Thompson suffered from a myocardial infarction (i.e., heart
`attack). (Doc. 40-26 at 70:2–10.)
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 15 of 38
`
`
`The Defendants retained several experts, including a forensic toxicologist,
`two forensic pathologists, an emergency room physician, and a law enforcement
`specialist. According to Dr. Bruce Goldberger, a forensic toxicologist (doc. 40-14
`at 2), Dr. Francisco Diaz, a forensic pathologist (doc. 40-15 at 2), and Dr. Upshaw
`Downs, a forensic pathologist (doc. 40-17 at 6, 9), Thompson consumed a lethal (and
`therefore unsurvivable) amount of methamphetamine. Therefore, there was no
`amount of medical intervention, regardless of its timing, that could have changed the
`outcome. According to Dr. Gregory Ledbetter, an emergency room physician,
`Thompson did not show signs of acute medical distress during his interactions with
`law enforcement but did exhibit the typical signs of methamphetamine use. (Doc.
`40-16 at 5–6.) Dr. Ledbetter also opined that earlier medical intervention would not
`have changed the outcome because of the amount of methamphetamine Thompson
`had taken. (Id.) Finally, Steve Watkins, a retired police chief with experience in
`dealing with individuals who have ingested drugs, believes Thompson’s change of
`condition during the hours preceding his death was typical of individuals who ingest
`drugs. (Doc. 40-18 at 5–8.)
`
`DISCUSSION
`The Estate sues the Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for their alleged
`deliberate indifference to Thompson’s serious medical needs in violation of the
`Fourteenth Amendment. The Defendants assert their entitlement to qualified
`immunity.
`Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued
`in their individual capacities when acting within their discretionary authority if their
`conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
`which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800,
`818 (1982). To prevail on a § 1983 claim against a government official acting within
`his discretionary authority – which is not at issue here – the Estate “must show (1)
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00651-RAH-JTA Document 103 Filed 11/06/24 Page 16 of 38
`
`the [D]efendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right or statutory right and (2)
`that the right violated was clearly established.” See Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588
`F.3d 1291, 1305 (11th Cir. 2009). The Defendants argue that the Estate cannot meet
`either prong.
`A. Constitutional Violation
`The first inquiry in reviewing the Estate’s § 1983 claim is to determine
`whether the Estate has sufficiently alleged and shown a constitutional violation.
`Only if the Estate adequately shows such a violation, must the Court examine the
`alleged basis for liability for the Officer and Jailer Defendants. “Without a . . .
`violation, there can be no violation of a clearly established right.” Smith v.
`Siegelman, 322 F.3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003).
`The Estate contends that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
`Thompson’s serious medical needs as a pre-trial detainee by failing to send him to
`the emergency room or alternatively having him seen by medical personnel. (Doc.
`27 at 10–11.) While a pre-trial detainee’s rights exist under the Fourteenth
`Amendment, a claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need is subject
`to the same analysis as if brought under the Eighth Amendment. Mann, 588 F.3d at
`1306. Therefore, to prevail on an Fourteenth Amendment claim of deliberate
`indifference to a serious medical need, the Estate must show 1) that Thompson had
`a serious medical need—an objective standard, 2) that the Defendants were
`subjectively aware that their own conduct, whether it be action or inaction, put
`Thompson at substantial risk of serious harm, with the caveat that even if the
`Defendants actually knew of a substantial risk, a reasonable response to that risk
`negates the existence of deliberate indifference, and 3) causation between the
`indifference and Thompson’s injury; here, his death. Mann, 588 F.3d at 1306–07;
`Wade v. McDade, 106 F.4th 1251, 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2024) (en banc). Because
`the material facts viewed in the light most favorable to the Estate