Megan McGuire v. Cory Cooper, 952 F.3d 918

On Feb. 10, 2013, Douglas County deputy Cory Cooper stopped a truck at Zorinsky Lake Park, removed passenger Megan McGuire to his patrol car, and detained both occupants after finding marijuana.
While McGuire was in Cooper’s patrol car, Cooper pressured her for about an hour to perform sexual acts to avoid her boyfriend’s arrest; he then coerced a brief sexual act before she escaped.
McGuire reported the assault to Omaha police on Feb. 14; the Sheriff’s Office did not open its own investigation until April after a separate report of suspicious behavior; Cooper was placed on limited duty, later fired, and pled no contest to misdemeanors.
The Douglas County Sheriff’s Office had no comprehensive sexual-misconduct policy or screening program; since Sheriff Dunning’s 1995 appointment there had been at least fifteen prior complaints of sexual misconduct by deputies.
McGuire sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Fourth Amendment, equal protection, due process, supervisory and municipal liability; the district court denied Sheriff Dunning’s qualified-immunity motion and denied Douglas County summary judgment.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed the interlocutory qualified-immunity appeal, concluded the prior incidents were not sufficiently similar or egregious to show notice or deliberate indifference, and reversed, directing entry of judgment for Sheriff Dunning on qualified immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sheriff had notice of a pattern of unconstitutional sexual misconduct by deputies	McGuire: Sheriff knew of ~11–15 prior sexual-misconduct complaints showing a pattern that should have put him on notice	Dunning: Prior incidents were varied, not similar enough to put a reasonable supervisor on notice that an on-duty deputy might sexually assault a member of the public	Held: Prior incidents were not sufficiently similar/egregious to establish a pattern; no notice shown
Whether failure to train/supervise amounted to deliberate indifference creating supervisor liability	McGuire: Lack of policies/training and failure to investigate prior complaints shows deliberate indifference and tacit authorization	Dunning: There is no patently obvious need to train against on-duty sexual assault; prior misconduct didn’t show a risk that training would have prevented this assault	Held: No deliberate indifference; reasonable supervisor would not have known specific training was required to prevent such conduct
Whether Sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity	McGuire: Facts viewed favorably show a triable issue on causation and deliberate indifference	Dunning: Qualified immunity shields him because constitutional violation was not clearly established from the prior record	Held: Qualified immunity applies; reversed district court and ordered judgment for Sheriff Dunning

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (qualified immunity standard for government officials)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (interlocutory appeals and qualified immunity review)
White v. McKinley, 519 F.3d 806 (burden and fact-viewing rules on qualified-immunity summary judgment)
Austin v. Long, 779 F.3d 522 (limits on interlocutory jurisdiction in qualified-immunity appeals)
Parrish v. Ball, 594 F.3d 993 (supervisory liability: notice, deliberate indifference, remedial action, causation)
Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340 (requirement that prior misconduct be very similar to establish a pattern)
S.M. v. Krigbaum, 808 F.3d 335 (prior misconduct must be sufficiently egregious to show pattern)
Thompson v. Murray, 800 F.3d 979 (constraining appellate review to the version of facts assumed by the district court)