Federal appeals court affirms dismissal of jail death lawsuit

A federal appeals court last week affirmed a lower court decision dismissing a lawsuit brought by the estate of a 20-year-old Rhinelander man who took his own life while he was an inmate in the Oneida County jail.

The estate of Gavin Wallmow, through his parents, filed a lawsuit in March 2022 alleging “deliberate indifference” to serious medical conditions and failure to properly monitor jail detainees resulted in their son’s death by suicide in July 2021.

In an opinion issued April 17, the judges of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson’s May 2023 decision granting summary judgment to Oneida County and the four corrections officers named as defendants.

“On the Fourth of July, 2021, police booked Gavin Wallmow into an Oneida County jail,” the appeals court decision, authored by Judge Amy St. Eve, reads. “Four days later he died by suicide in his cell. His is a tragic story. But it does not, as his estate alleges, implicate the Constitution. The district court reached the same conclusion in granting summary judgment to the defendants, and we affirm.”

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that two days before Wallmow died his probation officer reported to a county corrections employee that he had acted strangely during a face-to-face meeting and made statements indicative of serious mental illness, including references to his own death. The complaint further alleged that the corrections employee passed the information on to other corrections employees but none of the corrections employees made the health care workers at the jail aware of the information the probation officer shared. 

To prevail, the plaintiffs were required to show that the behavior of the four corrections officers named in the suit was objectively unreasonable. Both the district court and the court of appeals found that requirement was not met.

“The problem with the estate’s claim is that we cannot indulge the temptation to employ hindsight,” St. Eve wrote. “Wallmow thrice disavowed that he was at risk, the jail took him at his word, and after his talk with (his probation officer) nothing indicated otherwise. So the jail resolved to keep an eye on Wallmow without taking more intrusive steps. That course complies with the Constitution’s requirements.”

“To be sure, Wallmow’s talk with (his probation officer) ended on a disturbing note,” she continued. “But no defendant handled the situation in an objectively unreasonable way.” 

According to earlier filings, when he was booked into the jail Wallmow represented that he was not feeling suicidal and had no suicidal or self-mutilation inclinations.

An “express statement that [the deceased] was not considering suicide” from the deceased himself weighs heavily against objective unreasonableness, the opinion states.

Attorney Paul Kinne told the River News the family is “saddened and disappointed by the decision.”

“They hope, at least, that their fight for justice will prevent a similar tragedy in the future,” he added.

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].