Eighth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Denial of Motion to Dismiss Some Defendants from Lawsuit Over Missouri Prisoner’s Suicide
by Matt Clarke
On August 6, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of some defendants’ motion to dismiss some claims against them from a lawsuit over a Missouri Department of Corrections (DOC) prisoner’s suicide. The dismissed claims were against guards who worked in the unit where the suicide occurred and the DOC. Additional claims remain against the DOC, warden and contract medical staff.
In July 2021, Austen May was incarcerated at the DOC’s Southeast Correctional Center (SECC). DOC mental health professionals had previously diagnosed May with adjustment disorder, depression and anxiety, and treated him for those maladies. About a year earlier, May had attempted suicide via hanging while in DOC custody. He had also reported auditory hallucinations, insomnia and reduced appetite.
SECC Warden Bill Strange ordered May placed in administrative segregation pending the outcome of a disciplinary hearing the following week. The next day, guards Billy Loflin, Pierce Yount and Stephanie Noisworthy were working the unit where May was housed. DOC policy required them to make “irregular, but periodic checks [of the unit’s cells], with no fewer than 1 check in a 30-minute window.” However, 2 hours and 48 minutes elapsed between checks of May’s cell during which he placed a piece of paper over the observation window in the cell door and fatally hanged himself.
On behalf of May’s children, Kristine Williams filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the guards, DOC, Strange, Centurion of Missouri, and its employees, MD William L. Johnson, LPN Christy Williams, and LPC Cynthia Reese, medical personnel and a counselor who treated May. The claims included two counts of wrongful death under Missouri law against the DOC, and wrongful death as well as deliberate indifference to a risk of suicide against the guards.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss in which the DOC asserted sovereign immunity to the two counts of wrongful death and the guards claimed official immunity on the wrongful death claims and qualified immunity on the deliberate indifference count. The district court denied the motions and the guards and DOC appealed.
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court erred when it applied the “dangerous condition” exception to sovereign immunity based upon defective video equipment and/or the obstruction of the viewing window. It held the alleged “dangerous condition” was really an assertion that the facility “lacked preventive measures” and was improperly coupled with a claim that staff failed to appropriately monitor at-risk prisoners. See: Maune ex rel. Maune v. City of Rolla, 203 S.W.3d 802 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). Thus, the DOC was entitled to sovereign immunity on the two counts of wrongful death.
Williams also failed to allege the guards had actual knowledge of May’s prior suicide attempt or the heightened risk of suicide. Thus, the Court held that they are entitled to qualified immunity on the deliberate indifference claims.
The Court held that the guards were also entitled to official immunity on the wrongful death claims. This is because the latitude in the DOC policy on performing the cell checks renders it a discretionary act.
“Under Missouri law, official immunity protects public officials sued in their individual capacities from liability for alleged acts of negligence committed during the course of their official duties for the performance of discretionary acts,” the Court wrote, citing Davis v. Buchanan Cnty., 11 F.4th 604 (8th Cir. 2021).
Therefore, the Court reversed and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. See: Williams v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 186 F.4th 503 (8th Cir. 2026)
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
Related legal case
Williams v. Missouri Department of Corrections
| Year | 2026 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 186 F.4th 503 (8th Cir. 2026) |
| Level | District Court |