A federal judge has dropped all counts against the Wichita police officers who arrested 17-year-old Cedric Lofton and left him in a lockup facility where he was fatally restrained in September 2021.
In a July 16 ruling, Eric Melgren, chief judge of the U.S. District Court of Kansas, granted summary judgment in favor of the seven WPD officers on counts of deliberate indifference to medical needs, supervisory liability, negligence, and both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Melgren sided with lawyers representing the officers, who argued their clients were protected under qualified immunity, a controversial legal defense that shields government employees from liability so long as their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”
The only remaining counts in the civil rights suit brought by Lofton’s brother Marquan Teetz are against the five Sedgwick County corrections officers who pinned Lofton to the concrete floor of a holding cell for 39 minutes until he lost consciousness.
It was Wichita officers who first interacted with Lofton in the early morning hours of Sept. 24, 2021, after his foster father called 911 requesting help transporting Lofton for a mental health evaluation. Court filings identify the officers as Ryan O’Hare, John Esau, Jordan Clayton, Cory Bennett, Tony Supancic, Amanda Darrow and John Knolla.
What happened to Cedric Lofton?
Police body cam footage that has since been scrubbed from the public record after previously being released by the city shows Lofton appeared paranoid and out of touch with reality. He repeatedly told officers that people with guns were trying to kill him.
After almost an hour of Lofton refusing to voluntarily go with officers to the hospital for an evaluation, they attempted to take him by force and a physical altercation ensued. Supancic, a WPD supervisor, ultimately decided to take the foster teen to the Juvenile Intake and Assessment Center and charge him with battery instead of transporting him to the hospital.
O’Hare, who has since had his police license revoked, changed his responses on a state-mandated intake form after learning his original answers to questions about Lofton’s well being would have required officers to take him to a hospital for a medical evaluation before leaving him at the lockup facility.
In court filings requesting summary judgment, an attorney representing the officers asserts that “Nothing done by (or not done by) the WPD Officers caused injury or death to Lofton” and that the teen “sustained no serious harm from the alleged failure to secure mental health treatment.”
Less than an hour after police left JIAC, Lofton struck a corrections worker who picked his jacket up off of a chair. He was subsequently placed in leg shackles and held in a prone position for the next 39 minutes while he fought to escape. WPD did not return to the scene until after Lofton had lost consciousness due to lack of oxygen.
Proving qualified immunity
When a defendant raises qualified immunity on summary judgment, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove a reasonable jury could find facts supporting the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.
Lawyers representing Teetz claimed the officers violated Lofton’s right to receive immediate medical treatment for the serious mental health issues he was experiencing.
To justify the claim that access to immediate mental health care is a clearly established right, they pointed to two Tenth Circuit cases, including one where Utah officers arrested a man for possession of a stolen credit card. The man suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder that caused panic attacks. Despite him informing officers of his condition, they confiscated his OCD medicine and moved forward with the booking process, triggering a panic attack and resulting in the man filing a claim of deliberate indifference to his medical needs.
In reversing the district court’s summary judgment of qualified immunity for the officers, the Tenth Circuit mentioned without elaborating that “[t]he right to custodial medical care is clearly established.” Melgren, however, deemed the example to be insufficient in proving Lofton’s rights were violated.
“When performing this analysis, it becomes clear that the Tenth Circuit in Olsen did not reprimand the officers for taking the plaintiff to jail instead of a hospital, nor did it reprimand the officers for failing to obtain a mental health evaluation for the plaintiff,” Melgren wrote. “Thus, considering the specific facts and circumstances of this case compared with Olsen, the Court cannot conclude that Olsen either reaffirmed or created a precedent placing the constitutional question of immediate, involuntary hospitalization for mental health issues beyond debate.”
Teetz’s lawyers also pointed to a case where a Colorado man was arrested for setting fire to an art gallery and charged with a felony but it was determined that his delusions and psychosis interfered with his ability to exercise good judgment. While in custody, he repeatedly self-harmed and ultimately removed his right eye from its socket when left unmonitored for several hours.
“(I)t is of little relevance to this Court whether officers must carefully and frequently monitor a mentally ill inmate with a well-documented history of repeatedly serious self-harm to avoid violating his constitutional rights,” Melgren wrote in response.
What about the corrections officers?
In addition to granting qualified immunity on the deliberate indifference counts, Melgren granted the same to Supancic, Darrow, and Esau on counts of supervisory liability.
“When a supervisor seeks qualified immunity in a §1983 action, the clearly established prong is met only when the supervisor’s and the subordinate’s actions violate clearly established law,” Melgren wrote.
Citing his own discretion to do so, Melgren dismissed the state-level claims of negligence and infliction of emotional distress.
Last November, Melgren also dropped five counts of negligent training and deliberate indifference against Sedgwick County and the city of Wichita, determining that flawed policies and insufficient training were not responsible for Lofton’s death.
Melgren asserted the county corrections officers’ actions appear to be “in blatant disregard of the county’s written policies,” specifically noting provisions of the Juvenile Intake and Assessment Center’s use of force policy.
“Had the officers followed [the use of force policy] by employing less restrictive methods of behavior control, not applying force or restraints for the purposes of punishment or discipline, verbally or physically intervening, or immediately reporting all observations through the proper chain of command, Lofton would likely still be alive,” Melgren wrote on Nov. 14.
The medical examiner determined Lofton’s death to be a homicide, but District Attorney Marc Bennett did not file criminal charges against anyone who interacted with Lofton on the night he was killed.
The five county corrections officers have also requested summary judgment in the civil suit and argue that their actions throughout the fatal incident were protected by qualified immunity. Melgren has not yet ruled on that motion.
Most Popular
Comments / 0