Chaplin v. Muskogee, City of, 6:11-cv-00158

Plaintiff Larry Chaplin sues the City of Muskogee and Officers Fleak and Peters under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Oklahoma tort statutes, alleging excessive force and negligence related to a July 23, 2009 encounter.
Officers Fleak and Peters, MPD employees since 2003, used a canine (Bosco) deployed without a prior warning proclamation during the arrest attempt at Catherine White’s residence.
Bosco, a trained Dutch-speaking German Shepherd, was released by Peters to bite Chaplin while Chaplin was on the ground and handcuffed; there is a dispute over who gave commands and whether Parker’s or Fleak’s conduct was appropriate.
MPD policies regarding use of force and canine deployment existed since 2007–2009, including camera recording, but there was no policy requiring warnings before canine deployment and no clear national standard issues raised by Bosco’s training.
The court previously granted in part and denied in part; the disputes concern material facts about the Officers’ conduct, the City’s policies/customs, and the scope of employment for state-law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether City’s § 1983 excessive-force claim survives	Chaplin asserts policy/custom causation and reliance on excessive force.	City argues no municipal policy or conduct caused the injury.	Plaintiff's § 1983 excessive-force claim against City survives
Whether City § 1983 failure-to-train claim survives	City’s failure to train canines and officers caused the injury.	Insufficient evidence of a policy or training deficit.	Plaintiff's § 1983 failure-to-train claim against City survives
Whether state negligence and failure-to-train claims against City survive	Genuine issues of material fact as to negligent training and supervision.	No prima facie case or evidence of negligence by City.	State claims against City denied or pending; issues remain material
Whether state claims against Officers Fleak and Peters are within the scope of employment	Actions occurred during course of employment; may exceed scope later.	Claims should be dismissed if outside scope; initially within scope.	There is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether actions went beyond the scope of employment
Whether the City’s policies and customs regarding use of force and canines support Monell liability	Policies allowed or enabled the alleged excesses and canine deployment.	No causal link established between policy and injury.	Plaintiff raised genuine issues of material fact; Monell liability not dismissed

Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or custom and causal link)
DeCorte v. Robinson, 969 P.2d 358 (Okla. 1998) (scope-of-employment analysis can evolve; actions beyond scope may occur over time)
Lampkin v. Little, 286 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2002) (finding within scope and beyond good faith may coexist)
Bryson v. City of Okla. City, 627 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2010) (monell-like considerations for municipal liability in the Tenth Circuit)
Burke v. Utah Transit Auth. & Local 382, 462 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment standard and evidentiary inferences in the Tenth Circuit)