Short v. Smoot
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
436 F.3d 422 (2006)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Thomas Lee Short (plaintiff) was arrested for assaulting his wife in violation of a protective order that forbid him from contacting her, committing acts of family violence, and drinking alcoholic beverages. Upon his release, Mr. Short checked into a motel and began to drink heavily. He called his wife and told her several times that he was going to kill himself. Mrs. Short decided to go before a magistrate and have Mr. Short arrested for violating the protective order to keep him from harming himself. Sergeant Clint Keller was the arresting officer who took Mr. Short before the magistrate before he was remanded to the three deputies on duty at the jail (defendants). Sergeant Keller relayed to the deputies that Mr. Short had repeatedly threatened to kill himself. The deputies removed Mr. Short’s belt but did not follow other jail protocol such as removing his shoe laces or having him undergo a mental-health evaluation. During their shift, the deputies monitored Mr. Short via video surveillance. When three new deputies (defendants) started their shifts, the first-shift deputies did not relay that Mr. Short was a suicide threat, stating only that he was intoxicated. The new deputies did not consistently surveille Mr. Short’s activity. Mr. Short then tied together his shoe laces and hung himself from the ceiling of the cell. The district court denied summary judgment to the first-shift deputies and found that there was evidence that their conduct amounted to deliberate indifference.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilkins, C.J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Gregory, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.