Eighth Circuit Affirms Denial of Qualified Immunity to Arkansas Jailers Who Ignored Detainee’s Spider Bite
by Anthony W. Accurso
In an opinion filed on July 31, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a district court’s denial of qualified immunity (QI) to two Arkansas jailers who ignored a detainee’s swollen arm and hand from a spider bite for three days.
Eddie Humes, Sr. was taken into custody pending a felony drug charge at White County Detention Center in Eastern Arkansas on October 19, 2017. The following day, he reported a spider bite on his right hand to guards, including Lt. Misty Jones and County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO) Dep. Stephanie Gray. Over the next few days, Humes continued to show his wound to guards, who observed his hand and arm progressively swell to the size of “a small watermelon,” according to the complaint he later filed.
On the morning of October 25, 2017, Humes filed a grievance about the lack of medical attention over the preceding six days. That same day, he was transported to White County Medical Center, where hospital staff diagnosed a staph infection for which he was prescribed intravenous antibiotics and several “take home” medications.
Humes was returned to the jail later that day. However, the next day, on October 26, 2017, he had a fever and was returned to the hospital. A CT scan was performed, followed by emergency surgery on an abscess in his hand. The county released him from custody a day later, though he remained in the hospital until October 31, 2017.
With the aid of attorney Austin Porter, Jr. of the Porter Law Firm in Little Rock, Humes then filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court for the Eastern District of Arkansas that accused several jail officials of deliberate indifference to his serious medical need—a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The district court dismissed the claims against Defendants other than Jones and Gray, finding them not entitled to qualified immunity (QI). They filed an interlocutory appeal, which was heard by the Eighth Circuit.
The Court began by agreeing that the “Eighth Amendment proscribes deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of prisoners,” citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976). But to prove his deliberate-indifference claim, Hume had to demonstrate that: “(1) he suffered from an objectively serious medical need, and (2) defendants knew of the need yet deliberately disregarded it.” The definition of a “serious medical need,” the Court continued, is “one that has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment or one that is so obvious that even a layperson would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor’s attention,” citing Aswegan v. Henry, 49 F.3d 461 (8th Cir. 1995).
The district court had decided that the latter condition was met, in turn supporting an inference that Jones and Gray were aware of Hume’s need “yet deliberately disregarded it,” the Court explained. But pointing to Taylor v. Barkes, 575 U.S. 822 (2015), the Court said that the prisoner must also demonstrate that “every reasonable official” in their position “would have understood” the failure to take action violated his rights, in order to overcome their presumption of QI. For that, the Court found two cases which demonstrated that the guards should have known their conduct was violating Humes’ rights.
First, in Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 457 (8th Cir. 2004), the Court established that “extreme pain from loose and infected teeth, which caused blood to seep from . . . gums, swelling, and difficulty sleeping and eating” constituted “a need for medical attention that would have been obvious to a layperson.” In Dadd v. Anoka Cty., 827 F.3d 749 (8th Cir. 2016), the Court also established that “two days’ delay of… treatment may be the basis of a constitutional claim,” so long as “the decisions to delay were not based on medical judgment, but rather indifference.” Finding Humes’ claim substantially similar to these cases, the Court concluded that Jones and Gray were on notice that their delays constituted a violation of Humes’ rights. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of QI was upheld, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. See: Humes v. Jones, 109 F.4th 1112 (8th Cir. 2024).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login