Alan Van Orden, personal representative of the Estate of Crystal Rhea Bannister v. HEATH S. DOWNS, Detention Deputy assigned to the Caribou County Jail

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALAN VAN ORDEN, personal
representative of the Estate of Crystal
Rhea Bannister; ROBERT BANNISTER,
a legal heir of Crystal Rhea Bannister;
MICHELLE WALESKE, a legal heir of
Crystal Rhea Bannister,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
HEATH S. DOWNS, Detention Deputy
assigned to the Caribou County Jail; JUDY
PROBART LONG, Dispatcher employed
by Caribou County,
Defendants - Appellants,
and
CARIBOU COUNTY; CARIBOU
COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., an Office
controlled and directed by Caribou
County; RIC L. ANDERSON, Sheriff of
Caribou County; MICHAEL HADERLIE,
Commander of the Caribou County Jail;
BROCK LOPEZ, Detention Sergeant of
the Caribou County Jail; BRANDY
No. 14-35904
DC No. 4:10-CV-0385 BLW
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
JUL 08 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

BREDEHOFT, Detention Deputy assigned
to the Caribou County Jail; JODI SUTER,
Dispatcher employed by Caribou County;
BRETT SMITH, Physician Assistant
employed by Caribou County and assigned
to the Caribou County Jail,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 17, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Defendants Heath Downs and Judy Long (together, “Appellants”) appeal
from the district court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment on the
ground of qualified immunity. In an earlier appeal, we held that genuine issues of
material fact existed on the issue of whether Appellants and other defendants acted
with deliberate indifference to Crystal Bannister’s serious medical needs. Van
Orden v. Caribou Cnty., 546 F. App’x 647, 649 (9th Cir. 2013). In this appeal,
Appellants contend that they are immune from suit under the doctrine of qualified
immunity because the law at issue was not “clearly established” at the time of
-2-

-- 2 of 4 --

Bannister’s death on August 25, 2009. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm the district court’s denial of summary judgment.
“‘To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear that every
reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that
right.’” Taylor v. Barkes, 135 S. Ct. 2042, 2044 (2015) (per curiam) (quoting
Reichle v. Howards, 132 S. Ct. 2088, 2093 (2012)). This standard does “not
require a case directly on point, but existing precedent must have placed the
statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct.
2074, 2083 (2011). It was “clearly established,” at least as early as 2005, “that the
Eighth Amendment protects against deliberate indifference to a detainee’s serious
risk of suicide.” Conn v. City of Reno, 591 F.3d 1081, 1102 (9th Cir. 2010),
judgment vacated, 131 S. Ct. 1812, and opinion reinstated, 658 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.
2011); see Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). Appellants did not need
a more detailed standard to be aware that their indifference violated Bannister’s
constitutional rights, and no subsequent case has undermined the deliberate
indifference standard in the context of custodial suicide. As we held previously,
the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, shows that
Appellants were subjectively aware that Bannister posed a serious suicide risk but
failed to take protective actions. Van Orden, 546 F. App’x at 649.
-3-

-- 3 of 4 --

AFFIRMED.
-4-

-- 4 of 4 --