The Denver-based federal appeals court concluded on Monday that a jail employee can violate a detainee’s clear constitutional rights by ignoring an emergency distress signal, even if there is no further information about what kind of emergency exists.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit agreed Ralph Marcus Hardy had credibly claimed two Adams County sheriff’s employees were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights. Consequently, the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity, which generally shields government employees from lawsuits when they are not on notice their conduct is unreasonable.

All three judges agreed Deputy Dennis Rabie could be sued after Hardy allegedly told him he was having a medical emergency and Rabie offered no assistance. But the judges split 2-1 in finding Detention Specialist Daniel DeHerrera could be held liable for allegedly ignoring the three times Hardy’s cellmate activated the emergency button.

“This court has established a ‘general constitutional rule’ against ignoring an inmate’s requests for emergency medical attention,” wrote Judge Richard E.N. Federico in the Aug. 8 majority opinion. “Under these circumstances, and as a gatekeeper to medical care and emergency response, Detention Specialist DeHerrera would have been on notice that ignoring requests for emergency assistance was a violation of an inmate’s constitutional rights.”

Judge Robert E. Bacharach disagreed that DeHerrera would have known he was violating Hardy’s rights, noting the 10th Circuit’s prior cases involving similar constitutional violations involved an employee who had some clue about what the alleged emergency entailed.

“We lack any allegations about a similar observation or statement to Deputy DeHerrera about Mr. Hardy’s need for medical attention,” wrote Bacharach. “Mr. Hardy hasn’t cited any opinions recognizing a constitutional violation without the official’s observation or notification of a prisoner who is injured or sick.”

Representing himself, Hardy filed a lawsuit alleging three separate incidents violated his rights while he was detained pretrial in the Adams County jail.

The events at issue in the appeal happened on Sept. 22, 2022. Hardy fell out of his wheelchair in his cell, and he allegedly injured his back permanently and was unable to move. Hardy’s cellmate pressed the emergency button three times in roughly 45 minutes. DeHerrera, who was allegedly monitoring the distress calls, never responded.

After Hardy soiled himself and remained immobilized, his cellmate helped him back into his wheelchair, but caused him further injuries in the process.

Eventually, Rabie appeared with the detainees’ dinners. Hardy “verbally declared a medical emergency” and said he had fallen out of his wheelchair. Despite Hardy’s condition allegedly being apparent, Rabie told him to “file a grievance” and walked away.

Only later, after a shift change, did another deputy offer medical care. The deputy allegedly said DeHerrera did not respond to the emergency calls because “some inmates abuse the buttons, and they (staff) are not going to spend their entire shift chasing buttons.”

The defendants moved to dismiss Hardy’s claims by invoking qualified immunity. In July 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell recommended denying the motions, finding Hardy had alleged the two jail employees knew of and disregarded a serious risk to his health.

The defendants’ inaction “prolonged Plaintiff’s suffering and delayed his visiting with medical personnel who could have assessed and assisted him,” she wrote. “Additionally, for many years before September 2022 (the date of the alleged incident), the Tenth Circuit had held that jail officials may not ignore a detainee’s pleas for medical assistance in sufficiently analogous contexts.”

The defendants objected, but U.S. District Court Senior Judge William J. Martínez agreed with Dominguez Braswell. He believed it did not matter that Rabie had observed Hardy’s condition wile DeHerrera had not.

“In the Court’s view, while Detention Specialist DeHerrera may not have directly observed Plaintiff in his cell, he allegedly was aware that emergency distress calls were coming from Plaintiff’s cell and failed to notify floor deputies of the risk of harm to the occupants of the cell, which included Plaintiff,” Martínez wrote.

During oral arguments to the 10th Circuit panel, Bacharach wondered if DeHerrera deserved immunity because the court had never specifically addressed whether it amounts to a constitutional violation to ignore an emergency alarm without any additional context.

“All of the cases, as I understand it, there was a situation where the court recognized a constitutional violation when the officer either observed or was told in advance” about an emergency, he said. “Arguably, the unique aspect of this case with Officer (DeHerrera) is that the emergency button was just that — for all emergencies. ‘I wasn’t fed. They forgot to bring me my medications. They forgot to bring me my evening meal.'”

Ultimately, the majority agreed it would have been a clear constitutional violation if DeHerrera, as alleged, ignored the calls for help even without knowing exactly what was wrong.

“Hardy has sufficiently pleaded that Detention Specialist DeHerrera was subjectively aware of a serious risk of harm and nonetheless refused to fulfill his role as a gatekeeper to medical care,” wrote Federico for himself and Judge Scott M. Matheson Jr.

The case is Hardy v. Rabie et al.