Aery v. Board of County Commissioners
696 F. App'x 360
10th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Ashley Aery alleged Tulsa County Deputy Gerald Nuckolls sexually assaulted her after an illegal home search; suit originally filed in state court and removed to federal court.
- Initial complaint asserted § 1983 federal claims and multiple state-law tort claims against Nuckolls and Sheriff Stanley Glanz (individual and official capacities).
- Plaintiff amended to add state-law claims against the Board of County Commissioners seeking vicarious liability (Oklahoma Government Tort Claims Act); Board was named solely as employer.
- During litigation, claims against Sheriff Glanz in his individual capacity were dismissed without prejudice; judgment was entered under Rule 68 for the Sheriff in his official capacity and by stipulation against Nuckolls.
- District court dismissed the Board, reasoning it was unnecessary because sheriffs were sued in their official capacities and that the Board lacked supervisory authority over the Sheriff’s Office.
- Tenth Circuit held remaining state-law questions were best decided by state court and reversed dismissal of the Board, directing the district court to remand those state-law claims to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board was an unnecessary party because sheriffs were sued in their official capacities | Aery: Tulsa County (named via the Board) can be held vicariously liable; Okla. Stat. tit. 19 § 4 requires suing the county in the name of its board | Board: unnecessary because official-capacity suits against the Sheriff suffice; respondeat superior not at issue for state claims | Court reversed dismissal and remanded state-law claims to state court instead of resolving the issue on federal docket |
| Whether the Board can be held liable for actions of the Sheriff or deputies because it lacks supervisory authority over the Sheriff’s Office | Aery: County/Board can be vicariously liable under state law for employees’ torts | Board: cannot be held liable because the Board lacks supervisory authority over the Sheriff’s Office | Court declined to decide substantive state-law liability; remanded state-law claims to state court for those determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. City of Enid ex rel. Enid City Comm’n, 149 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir.) (when all federal claims are dismissed, district court usually should decline supplemental jurisdiction)
- Brooks v. Gaenzle, 614 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.) (district court erred in deciding remaining state tort claim; state-law issues are best left to state court)
- Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir.) (remand of state-law claims appropriate when district court declines supplemental jurisdiction)