Sixth Circuit: Qualified Immunity Granted to Guard in Delayed Treatment for Prisoner who Suffered Heart Attack
by David M. Reutter
On August 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity (QI) to a guard who delayed treatment by eight minutes to a Michigan prisoner who complained of chest pain and subsequently suffered a heart attack. The Court found the right at issue was not clearly established when considered in light of the facts of the case. This case emphasizes that an unconstitutional denial of medical care requires more than just a prisoner’s verbal complaints and requires physical exhibition of the need for treatment.
Michigan state prisoner Larry Richardson presented himself on January 27, 2023 to St. Louis Correctional Facility guard Nathan Falk. Richardson, who had a history of cardiac issues, informed Falk that he was suffering from chest pains and requested he be taken to healthcare. Falk told Richardson to return to his cell or he would be placed in confinement. Instead of returning to his cell, Richardson sat in a wheelchair on the other side of the room. A sergeant who came by a few minutes later felt Richardson was faking his symptoms, but a wheelchair pusher took Richardson to medical. After an hour without treatment, Richardson fell to the floor from a heart attack. Medical staff administered CPR and Richardson was revived.
Richardson filed a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 complaint alleging Falk’s delay of eight minutes in providing treatment constituted deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment and denied him due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Falk moved for summary judgment.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan adopted a magistrate’s report and dismissed the Fourteenth Amendment claim because of Richardson’s status as a prisoner and denied Falk QI on the Eighth Amendment claim. Falk appealed.
The Sixth Circuit focused on the second prong of the QI test: whether the right was clearly established at the time of the events at issue. The answer to that question hinged upon “what Falk knew, what Falk saw, the immediacy and severity of Richardson’s medical needs, and Falk’s response.” According to Richardson, Falk knew Richardson: (1) was complaining of bad chest pain, (2) wanted immediate healthcare treatment and (3) thought he could die at any moment.
The Sixth Circuit found Richardson’s only indication of a medical need was his complaint of chest pain. The Court further found that unlike established precedent, Richardson did not complain of shooting pain in his left arm or discuss the need for medication, was not lying on the floor, was not otherwise exhibiting external signs of distress, and he was not complaining loudly for hours. “Richardson’s oral complaint of chest pain, without any other sign of distress, does not stack up to the cumulative signs of a serious illness” in which guards have been found subject to liability.
The Court concluded that Falk was not on notice that a guard who denied care to a prisoner who was merely complaining of distress as opposed to exhibiting external signs of distress was constitutionally required to provide immediate medical care. Therefore, Falk was entitled to QI. The district court’s order was vacated and remanded for entry of judgment in Falk’s favor. See: Falk v. Richardson, Case No. 25-1867 (6th Cir. 2026).
Author’s Note: This case exhibits the need for prisoners to do more than verbalize conditions that require immediate medical care. In prison, we call this “going to Hollywood.” Admittedly, on one occasion, I went to Hollywood after suffering a condition for a long period. A health issue was, as a result of my performance, seriously suspected and it resulted in immediate testing and treatment when the cause of the ailment was diagnosed.
Prisoners, however, need to be certain they are truly in need of care before putting on a show. Unfortunately, some prisoners do fake conditions to obtain medication to sell or to obtain a care pass, resulting in guards and medical personnel obtaining credence to their belief that prisoners are always faking once the lie is proven.
As PLN has chronicled over its history, all too often prisoners are denied necessary care. In the real world, a Richardson’s chest complaint at a hospital would have resulted in an immediate EKG. As this case exhibits, to obtain such a result, and to impose liability for a failure to treat, requires a prisoner to exhibit physical distress and repeated complaints of pain.
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