Cash v. County of Erie
654 F.3d 324
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Cash, a pretrial detainee at Erie County Holding Center, was raped by Deputy Hamilton on December 17, 2002.
- Cash sued Erie County, the Erie County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Gallivan (in his official capacity), and Hamilton in federal court alleging §1983 due process and state-law negligence.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial before Magistrate Judge Jeremiah McCarthy on the §1983 municipal-liability claim.
- Evidence focused on whether a County policy or custom caused the constitutional violation, with Hamilton's rape undisputed, and a prior 1999 incident (Allen) and Gipson Memorandum discussed as potential warnings.
- New York law treated all sexual activity between guards and prisoners as non-consensual; expert and policy evidence argued that unmonitored one-on-one interactions were a risk, and the Gipson Memorandum was inadequate.
- A jury found Erie County and Gallivan liable under §1983 for deliberate indifference, awarding Cash $500,000, while finding Gallivan not negligent for state-law purposes; the district court later set aside the verdict and the case was appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial evidence supported municipal liability | Cash asserts deliberate indifference by Gallivan sufficient for Monell liability. | District court was correct in granting JMOL given lack of explicit notice of policy failure. | Not entitled to JMOL; trial evidence supported a reasonable jury finding of deliberate indifference. |
| Whether the special verdict form properly framed policy and causation | Question Two properly asked about policy and causation; district court correctly instructed elements. | Question Two conflated policy and causation and mis-stated proximate cause/moving force. | Question Two reasonably instructed policy and causation; no reversible error. |
| Whether the verdicts were irreconcilably inconsistent | Inconsistency between §1983 liability and no state-law negligence should trigger new trial. | Verdicts can co-exist; no irreconcilable conflict. | Verdicts not irreconcilably inconsistent; no new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires action pursuant to official policy or custom)
- Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (2011) (deliberate indifference standard for Monell liability; notice and responsibility of policymakers)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard; causation in municipal liability)
- Walker v. City of New York, 974 F.2d 293 (1992) (three-part test for supervisory liability under Walker framework)
- Caiozzo v. Koreman, 581 F.3d 63 (2009) (distinct standard for deliberate indifference in due process custody context)
- Vann v. City of New York, 72 F.3d 1049 (1995) (deliberate indifference may be shown where need for supervision was obvious)
- Amnesty Am. v. Town of W. Hartford, 361 F.3d 113 (2004) (notice that need for corrective action may be obvious)
- Hovater v. Robinson, 1 F.3d 1063 (1993) (deliberate indifference considerations in supervisory context)