Click Back Button to Return
to Publication
Edwina Bridges, Personal Representative of the Estate
of Harley Gene Bridges, Deceased - Estate of Harley Gene Bridges, Appellant, v.
H.G. Rhodes, Major, Individually and as Employee of The Arkansas Department of Corrections;
Larry A. Teal, Field Lt., Individually and as Employee of The Arkansas
Department of Corrections; Jeremy C. Andrews, Field Sergeant, Individually and
as Employee of The Arkansas Department of Corrections; Marvin Evans, Warden,
Individually and as Employee of The Arkansas Department of Corrections; Larry
Norris, Director, Individually and as Employee of The Arkansas Department of
Corrections, Appellees.
No. 02-1629
UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
41 Fed. Appx. 902; 2002 U.S.
App. Lexis 14648
July 5, 2002, Submitted
July 22, 2002, Filed
NOTICE:
RULES OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO
THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
PER CURIAM.
Edwina Bridges, personal representative for the estate of deceased
Arkansas inmate Harley Gene Bridges, appeals the District Court's n1 adverse
grant of summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. After careful review
of the record, see Jolly v Knudsen, 205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard
of review), we affirm.
In 1998, Harley Bridges suffered
a heat-related collapse while walking back to the Eastern Arkansas Regional
Unit (EARU) after an afternoon of working on a hoe squad. He subsequently died,
and Edwina Bridges sued--on behalf of his estate--EARU Sergeant Jeremy Andrews,
the officer who was supervising the hoe squad on the day of the incident. n2
The District Court granted summary judgment to Andrews based on qualified
immunity.
Edwina Bridges asserts violations of constitutional rights that were
clearly established in 1998. See Roberson
v. Bradshaw, 198 F.3d 645, 647 (8th Cir. 1999) (stating that Eighth Amendment
is violated when prison guards intentionally delay or deny access to care for
inmate's known serious medical need); Choate v. Lockhart, 7 F.3d 1370, 1373-74
(8th Cir. 1993) (stating that prison officials violate the Eighth Amendment
when they knowingly compel inmate to perform work which is beyond his strength,
which constitutes danger to his health, and which is unduly painful). She
fails, however, to produce any evidence showing that a reasonable official in
Andrews's position would have known that his actions violated Harley Bridges's
Eighth Amendment rights. See Mays v.
Rhodes, 255 F.3d 644, 647 (8th Cir. 2001) (setting out three-part inquiry in
determining whether public official defendant is entitled to qualified immunity
at summary-judgment stage). The
only evidence she offered was the affidavit of Dr. J. R. Baber, who reviewed
the decedent's medical records. Further, the affidavit contradicted portions of
Dr. Baber's prior deposition testimony. Cf.
Knudsen v. United States, 254 F.3d 747, 752 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding
that plaintiff's later affidavit contradicting his pleading and deposition
testimony cannot create genuine issue of fact for purposes of summary
judgment). And while Dr. Baber listed in his affidavit heat-related symptoms
that he attested Andrews must or should have recognized, these symptoms (red,
hot, and dry skin; cool, dry skin; light-headedness or dizziness; nausea; angry
behavior; and low blood pressure), for the most part, would not have been
readily visible to anyone. See Gregory
v. City of Rogers, Ark., 974 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc)
(explaining that to withstand summary judgment, nonmovant must present evidence
sufficiently probative to support disputed material facts such that reasonable
jury could return verdict in his favor), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 913, 122 L. Ed.
2d 661, 113 S. Ct. 1265 (1993).
On the issue of medical delay,
Edwina Bridges submitted no evidence supporting her assertion that Harley
Bridges suffered seizures and was writhing on the ground after his collapse,
and a twenty-minute delay in getting him to the infirmary was not unreasonable
because of the security concerns involved in Andrews's supervision of other
inmates on the hoe squad. See Mays,
255 F.3d at 649 (rejecting [*904] argument defendants were deliberately
indifferent because, although there was no question inmate needed medical
attention at time of his heat-related collapse, evidence showed supervising
officer responded in quick, reasonable manner while maintaining security of hoe
squad by calling for other officers to assess inmate and transport him to
infirmary).
Accordingly, we affirm.
FOOTNOTE:
n1 The Honorable Susan
Webber Wright, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable
H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of
Arkansas.
n2 Other prison officials and
employees were named, but the grant of summary judgment to those defendants is
not being challenged on appeal.