NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 18a0364n.06
No. 17-6309
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED
Jul 24, 2018
ROBERT MEDLEY, ) DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
v. ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
SHELBY COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., ) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
)
Before: SUTTON, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. While Robert Medley was jailed in the Shelby County
Detention Center, another inmate burned him with scalding water. Medley received some care
onsite, and was sent to the hospital 13 hours later. He thereafter brought this lawsuit, claiming that
he should have been sent to the hospital sooner. The district court granted summary judgment to
the defendants. We affirm.
I.
In 2012, Medley was being held in the Shelby County Detention Center pending trial.
Around 5:45 p.m. one day, while Medley was asleep in his bunk, another inmate threw water from
a “hot pot” on him. Within minutes, deputies took Medley for medical treatment. The night nurse
told the doctor on call, Dr. Waldridge, that Medley had “superficial burns to his face, neck, chest
and some of his back.” Dr. Waldridge prescribed cold cloths (to cool the skin), Silvadene (an
antibacterial burn cream), and ibuprofen (for pain). He continued that treatment after the nurse
No. 17-6309
Medley v. Shelby County
reported that Medley’s burns had formed blisters. When the nurse left at 10:30 p.m., Medley
appeared to be resting.
Deputies checked on Medley throughout the night. Around 2:00 a.m., Sgt. Doyle called a
supervising nurse with concerns about Medley’s condition: “[f]ace blistering, dripping fluids,
complaining he could not hear or see on the left side.” That nurse said to keep monitoring him,
and to give him Gatorade for hydration. Once the morning nurse, Nurse Peach, arrived at 6:00
a.m., she examined Medley. She told Dr. Waldridge that Medley “had some swelling and redness,
blisters” and “needed to be further evaluated.” Dr. Waldridge “advised [Nurse Peach] to take him
to the ER.” Medley was then taken to the hospital, and released a few days later.
Thereafter Medley sued everyone involved, including 11 jail deputies, the medical staff,
Shelby County, and Southern Health Partners—the company responsible for providing medical
care to inmates. The district court dismissed all claims against the medical staff as time-barred.
The court later granted summary judgment to the other defendants. This appeal followed.
II.
Medley challenges only the grant of summary judgment, which we review de novo. See
Richmond v. Huq, 885 F.3d 928, 937 (6th Cir. 2018). Summary judgment was proper if Medley
produced insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in his favor. See Hardrick v. City of
Detroit, 876 F.3d 238, 243 (6th Cir. 2017).
A.
Medley claims that the deputies are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because (he says) the
delay in taking him to the hospital violated his constitutional rights. To prevail on that claim,
Medley must prove that the deputies acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs. See Richmond, 885 F.3d at 937-38. That requires, first and foremost here, evidence “that
-2-
No. 17-6309
Medley v. Shelby County
the official[s] being sued subjectively perceived facts from which to infer substantial risk to the
prisoner, that [they] did in fact draw the inference, and that [they] then disregarded that risk.”
Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 550 (6th Cir. 2009).
Here, most of the defendant deputies had little to no involvement with Medley or the
incident at issue. And those deputies who were involved acted appropriately: two deputies took
Medley for medical care soon after he was burned, others checked on him throughout the night,
and Sgt. Doyle called the medical staff with concerns about Medley’s condition. See Winkler v.
Madison County, 893 F.3d 877, 895-96 (6th Cir. 2018). Although Medley asserts that there are
triable issues as to whether the deputies disregarded a substantial risk to him, he fails to support
that assertion with any specific evidence. See Appellant Br. 26, 30. And without evidence,
summary judgment for the deputies is appropriate.
B.
Medley next claims that the deputies are liable for several torts under Kentucky law,
namely negligence, outrage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, and battery. The
deputies argue that qualified immunity protects them from liability. See Rowan County v. Sloas,
201 S.W.3d 469, 475 (Ky. 2006). To invoke qualified immunity, they must show that their duties
were discretionary rather than ministerial. See id. at 476. Once they do, Medley must show that
they performed those duties in bad faith. See id.
A discretionary duty involves “the exercise of discretion and judgment, or personal
deliberation, decision, and judgment[,]” whereas a ministerial duty “requires only obedience to the
orders of others, or . . . is absolute, certain, and imperative[.]” Id. at 477-78 (citation omitted).
Whether a duty is discretionary or ministerial depends on the facts of the case. See Caneyville
Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Green’s Motorcycle Salvage, Inc., 286 S.W.3d 790, 809 n.9 (Ky. 2009).
-3-
No. 17-6309
Medley v. Shelby County
Here, Medley’s claim is based on an alleged lapse in judgment: he contends that the
deputies should have recognized the severity of his burns, second-guessed the medical staff’s
decisions, and called an ambulance. Medley says their role was ministerial nonetheless because
jail policies “set forth definite standards for the correctional staff concerning the medical care of
prisoners[.]” Appellant Br. 34. Yet he fails to identify even one specific, concrete rule that any
deputy violated. Hence the duty the deputies allegedly violated is discretionary. See Jerauld ex
rel. Robinson v. Kroger, 353 S.W.3d 636, 640-42 (Ky. Ct. App. 2011); cf. Marson v. Thomason,
438 S.W.3d 292, 298-302 (Ky. 2014). Moreover, as shown above, the deputies discharged that
duty in good faith—indeed, Medley offers no support to find otherwise. The deputies are therefore
entitled to qualified immunity.
C.
Medley also claims that the County is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because (he says) its
policy of outsourcing inmate medical care to a private company, Southern, violated his
constitutional rights. Absent that policy, he asserts, Sgt. Doyle would have sent him to the hospital
earlier than Southern’s medical staff did.
To prevail on that claim, Medley must prove that the County’s outsourcing policy is
facially unconstitutional, or that it was adopted “with ‘deliberate indifference’ as to its known or
obvious consequences.” Winkler, 893 F.3d at 901 (citation omitted). That policy is not facially
unconstitutional, for a County “may constitutionally contract with a private medical company to
provide healthcare services to inmates.” Id. And Medley offers no evidence that outsourcing
inmate medical care to Southern raises “an obvious risk to inmates’ constitutional rights to
adequate medical care.” See id. at 902. Rather, his “argument is essentially that the County’s
policy did not, in this particular case, adequately address [his] specific medical needs.” Graham
-4-
No. 17-6309
Medley v. Shelby County
ex rel. Estate of Graham v. County of Washtenaw, 358 F.3d 377, 384 (6th Cir. 2004). That is not
enough to hold the County liable for a constitutional violation. See id. at 384-85.
Separately, Medley suggests that the County failed to train its deputies adequately. There
are two ways to prove that theory of liability: first, Medley may show that the County “fail[ed] to
act in response to repeated complaints of constitutional violations by its officers”; or second, he
may show that a rights violation is a “highly predictable consequence of a failure to equip
[employees] with specific tools to handle recurring situations.” Winkler, 893 F.3d at 903 (citations
omitted). Medley has neither kind of proof, so this claim fails.
D.
Finally, Medley claims that Southern is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because (he says) it
had a practice of giving inmates constitutionally inadequate medical care. See generally Winkler,
893 F.3d at 904. In support, he cites Nurse Peach’s testimony that she was usually required to ask
her supervisor before calling a doctor about a patient. Medley must prove that this practice caused
his injury, however, and here Nurse Peach bypassed her supervisor and called Dr. Waldridge about
Medley directly. See, e.g., Graham, 358 F.3d at 383. Hence this claim fails too.
* * *
The district court’s judgment is affirmed.
-5-