Gwennetta Pratt-Miller v. Sheriff Beth Arthur
701 F. App'x 191
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Gwenetta Pratt-Miller and Curtis Dawkins sued Arlington County Sheriff Beth Arthur (and Deputy Craig Patterson) after Patterson attempted to arrest and fatally shot their son.
- Amended complaint brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Arthur in both official and individual capacities and related state-law claims; Patterson remains a defendant in district court.
- District court dismissed the § 1983 official-capacity claims against Arthur (plaintiffs had asked the court to dismiss them at hearing) and later granted summary judgment to Arthur on the remaining claims against her after limited discovery.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the grant of summary judgment challenging municipal/supervisory liability under § 1983 and respondeat superior under Virginia law, and contended the court abused its discretion in limiting discovery.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed: plaintiffs invited dismissal of the official-capacity claims, failed to show supervisory or municipal liability under § 1983, failed to show Patterson acted within scope of employment for respondeat superior, and the district court did not abuse its discretion on discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dismissal of § 1983 official-capacity claims | Plaintiffs contend Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar official-capacity claims | Arthur argued claims were barred and plaintiffs requested dismissal at hearing | Court: Plaintiffs invited the dismissal; cannot challenge it on appeal; dismissal stands |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (Monell) | Arthur was final policymaker and failed to train deputies | Arthur’s official-capacity theory was not the operative issue; remaining claims were individual-capacity requiring supervisory-liability proof | Court: No municipal liability shown; claims were individual-capacity and failed |
| Supervisory liability under § 1983 | Arthur tacitly authorized or was deliberately indifferent to Patterson’s conduct | Arthur lacked actual/constructive knowledge of a pervasive, unreasonable risk and did not act with deliberate indifference | Court: Plaintiffs failed heavy burden to show pervasive risk or deliberate indifference; summary judgment proper |
| Respondeat superior (Virginia law) | Employer (Arthur/office) liable for Patterson’s torts | Arthur showed Patterson was not acting within scope of employment at time of shooting | Court: Evidence supports that Patterson was not acting within scope; summary judgment for Arthur proper |
| Denial/limitation of discovery before summary judgment | Plaintiffs needed more discovery to defeat summary judgment | District court limited discovery; defendant argued limitation was proper | Court: No abuse of discretion in restricting discovery prior to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jackson, 124 F.3d 607 (4th Cir. 1997) (invited-error doctrine bars challenging a judgment a party asked the court to enter)
- Owens v. Balt. City State’s Attorneys Office, 767 F.3d 379 (4th Cir. 2014) (scope of § 1983 liability principles)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
- Lytle v. Doyle, 326 F.3d 463 (4th Cir. 2003) (ways to establish municipal liability: policy, decisionmaker, training, or custom)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (U.S. 1985) (distinguishing official-capacity and personal-capacity suits)
- Shaw v. Stroud, 13 F.3d 791 (4th Cir. 1994) (three-part test for supervisory liability under § 1983)
- Plummer v. Center Psychiatrists, Ltd., 476 S.E.2d 172 (Va. 1996) (respondeat superior and burden on employer to show acts were outside scope of employment)
- Kensington Assocs. v. West, 362 S.E.2d 900 (Va. 1987) (test for whether an act is within scope of employment)
- Gina Chin & Assocs. v. First Union Bank, 537 S.E.2d 573 (Va. 2000) (focus on whether service in which tort occurred was within ordinary course of business)
- Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion review of district court refusal to allow further discovery before summary judgment)