A federal judge on Monday dismissed claims that medical staff at the Pueblo County jail were deliberately indifferent to a detainee’s risk of suicide in the days before he died, but allowed other claims relating to the man’s physical pain to proceed.

Jay Philip Pritchard entered the jail on Oct. 29, 2021, allegedly alerting multiple law enforcement and medical staff that he was suicidal. Over the next few days, Pritchard reported extreme pain from his leg or hip. On Nov. 1, after a deputy provided Pritchard with a phone, Pritchard used the cord to hang himself. He died of his injuries three days later.

Pritchard’s surviving sister sued Pueblo County, the elected sheriff, multiple law enforcement and medical employees, and the jail’s medical contractor, NaphCare. She alleged the individual defendants were deliberately indifferent to Pritchard’s medical care — meaning they knew of and disregarded an obvious risk to his health — and that organizational policies contributed to the constitutional violation.

After hearing arguments from both sides, U.S. District Court Judge Gordon P. Gallagher ruled from the bench that he saw three paths to liability. First, there was a “straight-line” theory in which staff allegedly ignored Pritchard’s mental illness, leading to his suicide. Second, the “non-straight-line” theory involved staff allegedly failing to treat Pritchard’s physical pain, causing him to deteriorate until he committed suicide.

Finally, there was a theory in which staff responded with deliberate indifference to Pritchard’s physical pain, regardless of his eventual death by suicide.

Of the three theories, Gallagher determined the final one was viable.

“I find these allegations are sufficient,” he said, for a “denial of medical care claim, at least to the extent this claim is premised on deliberate indifference to Mr. Pritchard’s leg injury.”

According to the lawsuit filed by Pritchard’s sister, Pueblo police attempted to contact Pritchard on Oct. 29, 2021, but he fled in a vehicle. Pritchard allegedly felt intense hip pain during the subsequent arrest by force, and police took him to a hospital. Once he arrived at the judicial center, an officer wrote on an intake form that Pritchard had not exhibited signs of mental illness.

However, at one point during his intake, three medical or law enforcement employees allegedly heard Pritchard say he thinks about suicide daily.

Unable to walk due to his injury, Pritchard was allegedly placed naked in a cell. Shortly before his death, hospital imaging would confirm Pritchard had a broken femur.

Pritchard was allegedly left to sit in his own urine and feces. Nurse Stacy Valdez allegedly met with Pritchard and learned about his pain, but did not escalate his care. Licensed clinical social worker Acasha Kerr also allegedly met with Pritchard and learned of his leg pain. After he told her he was “not suicidal” and was “just tired,” she discontinued Pritchard’s suicide watch.

Finally, on Nov. 1, a third NaphCare employee, Tammy Laborde, met with Pritchard. He told her he was not suicidal, but that “I think I broke my hip.”

Later that day, Pritchard asked Deputy Wellington Duplessis for a phone. Duplessis brought him a telephone with a long extension cord, then left Pritchard unattended. Half an hour later, staff discovered Pritchard had strangled himself.

The defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them in whole or in part. NaphCare and the county argued Pritchard’s sister failed to point to an organizational policy or practice that led to Pritchard’s suicide. Meanwhile, the individual defendants argued the allegations did not show they had knowledge of Pritchard’s suicidality.

“Importantly, plaintiff’s complaint admits that on every occasion Mr. Pritchard was seen by Laborde and Kerr, Mr. Pritchard said he was not suicidal,” said Zach Williams, an attorney for the NaphCare defendants.

“There’s been a lot of discussion about the linkage of the pain to suicide. What about deliberate indifference purely for the injury itself? The leg-hip injury?” asked Gallagher.

Williams responded that Pritchard went to a hospital upon his arrest and was cleared for the jail.

“It is reasonable, in our view, to rely on that,” he said.

“At no point was it articulated to her that he was in so much pain as it related to his left hip that she needed further follow-up,” added Jacqueline Sharuzi, who represents Valdez.

Gallagher sided in part with the defendants, finding insufficient allegations that an official policy or custom was behind any constitutional violation. He also agreed the lawsuit “fails to plead the existence of a risk of suicide so obvious” that the NaphCare employees would have recognized it under either the straight-line or non-straight-line theories.

However, based on the allegations of what Pritchard told the three medical workers, Gallagher agreed there was a viable claim that each defendant knew about and disregarded Pritchard’s severe leg or hip pain. He allowed the lawsuit to continue on that basis.

Before the hearing, Pritchard’s sister agreed to dismiss Duplessis, the jail deputy, after discovering he did not know about Pritchard’s prior suicidality at the time he brought the phone to Pritchard. Although NaphCare opposed his dismissal from the lawsuit, Gallagher said he did not believe such an objection could influence the dismissal.

The case is Estate of Pritchard v. Board of County Commissioners et al.