Kelson v. Clark
No. 20-10764 (5th Cir. 2021)
Holding
Paramedics who refused to treat a visibly injured, homeless, mentally ill man — instead harassing and laughing at him — were not entitled to qualified immunity on a failure-to-provide-medical-care claim after the man died from untreated head trauma in custody.
What This Case Is About
Hirschell Wayne Fletcher, Jr., a homeless man with schizophrenia, was beaten and robbed outside a soup kitchen. When paramedics Kyle Clark and Brad Cox arrived, they allegedly laughed at Fletcher and refused to examine his visible head injuries. Fletcher was arrested for public intoxication and died in custody from untreated head trauma. The Fifth Circuit denied the paramedics’ qualified immunity on the failure-to-treat claim.
The Facts
On December 30, 2016, Fletcher was assaulted twice near a soup kitchen in Dallas — first robbed, then punched in the head, causing him to fall and hit his head on a wall. Bystanders alerted a police officer, who called two fellow officers and two Dallas Fire-Rescue paramedics, Clark and Cox.
Fletcher told the officers and paramedics he needed medical attention. Blood and contusions from the beatings were “patently visible.” But instead of examining and treating him, the officers and paramedics allegedly “began harassing and openly laughing” at Fletcher for ten minutes as he sat on the sidewalk. The officers assumed Fletcher was drunk without investigating whether he was actually intoxicated. Fletcher was arrested for public intoxication, taken to the city detention center, and continued to complain of his injuries. He died from previously sustained head trauma while in custody.
What the Court Decided
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity for paramedics Clark and Cox. The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged deliberate indifference to Fletcher’s serious medical needs — a standard drawn from the Fourteenth Amendment for pretrial detainees and the Eighth Amendment for convicted prisoners.
The court found that Fletcher’s injuries were objectively serious — visible blood and contusions from multiple assaults — and that the paramedics’ response of laughing at and harassing him, rather than providing any examination or treatment, constituted subjective deliberate indifference. The right of a person in custody to receive medical care for obviously serious injuries was clearly established, so qualified immunity did not apply.
Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case
Kelson v. Clark is significant for claims involving denial of medical care:
- Deliberate indifference standard: To state a claim, you must show (1) an objectively serious medical need and (2) that the official knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the person’s health or safety. Visible injuries from a violent assault clearly satisfy the first prong. Laughing at someone and refusing to examine them satisfies the second.
- Paramedics can be § 1983 defendants: This case confirms that paramedics acting under color of law — as government employees called to the scene by police — can be held liable under § 1983 for deliberate indifference.
- Pretrial detainees: Persons arrested but not yet convicted are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, which provides at least as much protection as the Eighth Amendment.
- Clearly established: The right to medical care for obviously serious injuries while in government custody is well-established. Officers and paramedics cannot claim they didn’t know they needed to provide treatment.
Key Takeaway
When government paramedics encounter a person in custody with obviously serious, visible injuries and respond by laughing and refusing to examine the person, they are deliberately indifferent to a serious medical need — and the right to receive medical care in that situation is so clearly established that qualified immunity does not apply.