Fuentes v. Nueces County

What This Case Is About

Sammuel Toomey committed suicide while in pretrial detention at the Nueces County Jail. His wife and children sued Nueces County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the county’s customs and policies regarding suicide watch and inmate monitoring were constitutionally inadequate. The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the county, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish municipal liability under Monell.

The Facts

Sammuel Toomey was arrested on September 14, 2014, following an altercation with his neighbor in which Toomey allegedly shot and killed three individuals. During intake processing at the Nueces County Jail, Toomey stated that he intended to kill himself. He was placed on suicide watch, requiring guards to check on him at regular 30-minute intervals, but was not required to wear the suicide smock reserved for higher-risk inmates.

For most of his detention, Toomey was checked approximately every 30 minutes. On September 18, he was moved to a cell in the 4P unit. Officer Gomez conducted regular checks, and his last check at 11:00 p.m. showed Toomey lying on his side. During a shift change, Officer Garza and Gomez conducted a roll call between 11:09 and 11:20 p.m. Garza observed Toomey lying on his stomach, apparently sleeping and breathing, but admitted he did not check Toomey’s arm band or observe his face — a violation of jail policy.

When Garza returned at 11:30 p.m. to release Toomey for his daily hour outside his cell, he found Toomey with his pants tied around his neck, unresponsive. Despite resuscitation efforts, Toomey was pronounced dead at 12:19 a.m. on September 19. An internal investigation found that “no violations of customs, regulations, or policies contributed to Toomey’s death.”

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Nueces County. The court applied the three-element test for municipal liability: (1) an official policy or custom, (2) a policymaker who can be charged with actual or constructive knowledge, and (3) a constitutional violation whose moving force was the policy or custom.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy these elements. The county had a suicide watch policy in place, and it was generally followed — Toomey was checked at regular intervals. While Officer Garza admittedly violated jail policy by not fully verifying Toomey’s identity and condition during the roll call, an individual officer’s deviation from policy is not the same as a policy or custom of deliberate indifference.

The court also noted that the county’s own internal investigation found no systemic policy failures. A single incident — even one with tragic consequences — does not establish the pattern of violations needed to prove an unconstitutional custom under City of Canton v. Harris.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

This case illustrates the high bar for holding a county liable for a jail suicide under § 1983. Even when an individual jailer clearly makes a mistake (here, failing to properly check on a suicidal inmate), that alone doesn’t establish Monell liability. You must show that the county’s policy itself was deficient, or that there was a pattern of similar violations amounting to a custom of deliberate indifference.

The case also demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between an officer’s failure to follow an adequate policy (which is not Monell liability) and a policy that is itself constitutionally inadequate (which can be). If the county had a reasonable suicide watch policy and individual officers simply failed to follow it, the county is not liable — the remedy lies against the individual officers.

Key Takeaway

A single jail suicide, even where individual officers clearly failed to follow procedures, does not establish municipal liability under § 1983. To hold a county liable for a detainee’s death, you must prove that the county’s official policy or an entrenched custom of inadequate monitoring was the moving force behind the constitutional violation — not merely that an individual officer made a tragic mistake.