## Facts

- Thomas Lee Short, Sr. was arrested on January 8, 2004 for assault and battery of his wife and for violating a protective order restricting contact and alcohol use.
- Mary Short sought enforcement of the protective order in part because Thomas Short had been making repeated threats to kill himself.
- After arrest, Sergeant Clint Keller brought Short to the jail and informed jail personnel that Short had repeatedly threatened suicide.
- Deputies removed Short’s belt but allegedly did not implement other suicide-prevention measures (including removing shoelaces, arranging mental-health assessment, and maintaining adequate observation).
- During a shift change, outgoing deputies allegedly failed to communicate Short’s suicide risk to incoming deputies, conveying only that he was intoxicated.
- Short tied shoelaces together and hanged himself in his cell.
- Mary Short, individually and as administratrix, sued multiple deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging deliberate indifference to a known suicide risk.
- The district court denied summary judgment to five deputies on qualified immunity; the deputies filed an interlocutory appeal.
- For purposes of the appeal, the court accepted the facts reasonably inferred in plaintiff’s favor.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s evidence, viewed favorably to her, could show that one or more deputies were deliberately indifferent to a known, substantial risk that a pretrial detainee would commit suicide, violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the right of a pretrial detainee to be free from deliberate indifference to a known, substantial risk of suicide was clearly established in January 2004.
3. Whether qualified immunity must be resolved separately for each deputy based on that deputy’s personal knowledge and actions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the denial of qualified immunity, and remanded.
- As to deputies for whom the record (viewed favorably to plaintiff) could support findings that they were told of repeated suicide threats and then failed to take basic protective steps or communicate the risk, qualified immunity was denied.
- As to deputies whose knowledge of a substantial suicide risk or involvement was not sufficiently supported even under plaintiff-favorable inferences, qualified immunity was granted.
- The court required an individualized assessment of each deputy’s knowledge and conduct rather than treating the defendants collectively.

## Legal Principles

- Qualified immunity protects officials performing discretionary functions unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable officer would have known.
- A pretrial detainee’s due process right is violated when an official is deliberately indifferent to serious medical needs or a known, substantial risk of serious harm, including suicide.
- Deliberate indifference requires proof the official actually knew of the substantial risk and disregarded it; negligence or lack of due care is insufficient.
- The “clearly established” inquiry is context-specific; liability and immunity turn on the particular facts known to the defendant and the defendant’s response.
- In multi-defendant jail-suicide cases, qualified immunity analysis must be performed defendant-by-defendant based on personal knowledge, duties, and actions.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that deliberate-indifference suicide claims against jail staff require evidence that each defendant personally knew of a substantial suicide risk and disregarded it; because the record supported that showing for some deputies but not others, the court denied qualified immunity in part, granted it in part, and remanded for further proceedings.


Short v. Smoot, 436 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 2006)