Waller v. City and County of Denver
932 F.3d 1277
10th Cir.2019Background
- In Sept. 2012, while a restrained detainee in Denver City Jail, Anthony Waller calmly addressed a judge; Deputy Brady Lovingier then grabbed and threw him into a glass wall, causing serious injuries; the assault was captured on courtroom video.
- Deputy Lovingier was suspended for 30 days after an internal review concluded the force was unprovoked and breached Sheriff Department principles; a hearing officer affirmed the suspension.
- Waller sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: (1) excessive-force claim against Lovingier (tried to jury verdict in Waller’s favor for $50,000), and (2) municipal-liability claim against City and County of Denver based on theories including failure to train, hire, supervise, investigate, and discipline.
- The district court dismissed Denver on Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a municipal-liability claim; Waller’s motion to amend alleging additional facts was denied as futile; he appealed only the dismissal.
- The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo, declined to consider post-complaint reports not incorporated into the pleadings, and assessed whether Waller plausibly alleged a municipal policy/custom and deliberate indifference supporting Monell liability.
- The court affirmed dismissal, holding Waller failed to plead a municipal policy or deliberate indifference (no pattern of similar violations, no causal link, and alleged facts were insufficient or post-dated the incident).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Denver can be liable under Monell for Lovingier’s use of force | Waller argued Denver’s practices (hiring, training, supervision, investigation, discipline) caused Lovingier’s conduct | Denver argued the complaint lacked factual allegations showing a municipal policy/custom or deliberate indifference causally linked to the assault | Dismissal affirmed: pleadings do not plausibly allege municipal policy/custom or deliberate indifference |
| Failure-to-hire theory: inadequate background checks/nepotism | Waller alleged poor background checks and nepotism (Lovingier’s family ties) led to hiring dangerous deputies | Denver: allegations insufficient to show that hiring decisions made Lovingier’s violent conduct plainly obvious or that decisionmakers were deliberately indifferent | Held: insufficient; no plausible causal link or deliberate indifference |
| Failure-to-train/supervise theory | Waller claimed systemic training/supervision deficiencies causing excessive-force incidents | Denver: Connick/Canton require a pattern of similar violations or a narrowly obvious need for training; one or post-incident allegations don’t suffice | Held: insufficient — no pre-incident pattern, not a plainly obvious training need, and allegations too generalized |
| Failure-to-investigate/discipline theory | Waller relied on Office of the Independent Monitor findings (low IA investigations; deviations from policy) to show a culture tolerating force | Denver: those reports (largely 2013) were not properly before the court; allegations are general, many post-date the assault, and do not show causation | Held: insufficient — allegations too general, temporally problematic, and fail to link municipal action to the violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (municipalities liable only for their own policies or customs)
- Brown v. Board of County Comm’rs, 520 U.S. 397 (deliberate indifference standard for hiring/training claims)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (need for a pattern of violations or a narrowly obvious training defect)
- Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (failure-to-train liability and the need to avoid de facto respondeat superior)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must cross line from conceivable to plausible)
- Alvarado v. KOB-TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210 (12(b)(6) standard in Tenth Circuit)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (disregard conclusory allegations on 12(b)(6))
- Bryson v. City of Oklahoma City, 627 F.3d 784 (forms of municipal policy/custom)
- Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760 (single or few incidents insufficient to show deliberate indifference)
- Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299 (notice usually established by pattern; narrow exceptions require highly predictable consequences)
- Mocek v. City of Albuquerque, 813 F.3d 912 (complaint must plausibly allege municipal policy/custom to proceed to discovery)