Crystal Rice v. Scott Adams

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 14, 2026 · No. 24-2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded the denial of detention officers’ motion to dismiss a Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim arising from a detainee’s death during opioid withdrawal. The court held that the complaint failed to connect any named officer to a specific act or omission and improperly relied on collective allegations. The court did not address qualified immunity or whether the plaintiff could amend the complaint.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Judge Richardson; Judge Niemeyer; Judge Agee
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
April 14, 2026
Docket number
24-2026
Procedural posture
Plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that detention officers were deliberately indifferent to Cynthia Rice's serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The officers asserted qualified immunity and moved to dismiss. After the district court denied the motion, the officers appealed.
Standard of review
De novo review of the legal question whether the complaint sufficiently stated a claim; denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable to the extent it turns on an issue of law.
Precedential value
Published Fourth Circuit opinion; precedential
Parties
Scott Adams, Barry Janney, William Jolly, Richard Runk, Tyler Fox, Timothy Dow, Jessica Reil, Jacob Platt, Michael Rea, Kathleen Kisner, Matthew Carr, Daryl Osborne v. Crystal Rice, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Cynthia Rice
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

motions to dismisspleadingssection 1983due processappellate jurisdiction

Practice areas

civil procedurecivil rightsconstitutional lawprisoner medical care

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Fourth Circuit had interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity and related pleading issues.
  2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that any named detention officer acted with deliberate indifference to Cynthia Rice's serious medical needs under the Fourteenth Amendment.
  3. Whether collective and undifferentiated allegations against multiple officers satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and the plausibility standard.

Holdings

  1. The court had appellate jurisdiction because the denial of qualified immunity was immediately appealable to the extent it turned on an issue of law, and pendent appellate jurisdiction extended to overlapping issues concerning the sufficiency of the complaint.
  2. The complaint failed to state a plausible Fourteenth Amendment deliberate-indifference claim because it did not connect any named officer to a specific culpable act or omission or allege what that officer knew about Rice's condition.
  3. The court did not decide whether the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the complaint failed at the threshold pleading stage to allege a constitutional violation.

Key quotations

To allege that an officer acted with deliberate indifference, the complaint must make defendant-specific allegations. (at 7)
Lumping defendants together won’t do. (at 7)
At bottom, the complaint does not allow us to connect any named officer to any act or omission that plausibly amounts to deliberate indifference to Rice’s serious medical needs. (at 9)

Factual background

Cynthia Rice was booked into the Cecil County Detention Center while suffering from opioid withdrawal and died in custody after experiencing severe pain. Medical personnel screened her, recorded withdrawal symptoms and high blood pressure, ordered a high-priority detox check and later an opioid-detox protocol, and repeatedly monitored her. The complaint alleged generally that custody staff and sheriff's deputies knew of her condition, told her to stop making noise, and failed to provide or obtain care, but it did not identify what any named officer did or knew.

Procedural history

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the defendant officers' motion to dismiss and concluded that the complaint adequately stated a § 1983 claim and that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at that stage. The Fourth Circuit exercised interlocutory appellate jurisdiction over the legal issue underlying the denial of qualified immunity, reversed the denial of the motion to dismiss, and remanded.

Remand instructions

The district court's denial of the officers' motion to dismiss is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. The court did not decide whether Plaintiff may amend the complaint.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…