Lаtasha M. BOYER-GLADDEN, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Deputy Sheriff Bill HILL, and Danny Glick, Sheriff of Laramie County Wyoming in his Official Capacity, Appellees (Defendants).
No. S-09-0102
Supreme Court of Wyoming
Feb. 9, 2010
2010 WY 12
Representing Appellee Bill Hill: Kay Lynn Bestol of Sundahl, Powers, Kapp & Martin, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee Danny Glick: Nancy D. Freudenthal and Mark Stewart of Davis & Cannon, LLP, Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General; Theodore R. Racines, Senior Assistant Attorney General. Argument by Ms. Freudenthal and Mr. Racines.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
VOIGT, Chief Justice.
[¶ 1] The appellant claims that, while she was a pretrial detainee in the Laramie County Detention Facility, she was sexually assaulted by a detention deputy. She sued both the deputy and the sheriff who employed him, alleging assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent failure of the sheriff to supervise the deputy, and deprivation of her civil rights under
[¶ 2] We affirm in part and reverse in part.
ISSUES
[¶ 3] The parties’ disjunctive identification of the appellate issues in their respective briefs not being conducive to structured analysis, we will restate the issues as follows:
- Did the distriсt court appropriately grant summary judgment against the appellant on the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act claim?
- Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the deputy on the state law tort claims?
- Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the deputy on the federal civil rights claim?
Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the sheriff on the state law tort claims? - Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the sheriff on the federal civil rights claim?
FACTS
[¶ 4] The undisputed material facts relevant to this appeal are not many. On November 9, 2004, the appellаnt was a pretrial detainee incarcerated in the Laramie County Detention Facility. While she was mopping the floors in the “pod” that evening, she was sexually assaulted by a detention deputy.1 Upon learning about the sexual assault, the sheriff suspended, and then terminated, the deputy‘s employment on the ground that sexual contact between inmates and detention deputies violated the policies of the sheriff‘s office.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶ 5] Summary judgments are governed by
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue аs to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A district court‘s summary judgment ruling is reviewed de novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court. The evidence is considered from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record.
The summary judgment movant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case for summary judgment by showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that judgment should be granted as a matter of law. He must present admissible evidence to meet his burden.
If the party seeking summary judgment carries his burden, the opposing party must present specific facts to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact exists....
After a movant has adequately supported the motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must come forward with competent evidence admissible at trial showing there are genuine issues of material fact. The opposing party must affirmatively set forth material, specific facts in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, and cannot rely only upon allegations and pleadings[,] and conclusory statements or mere opinions are insufficient to satisfy the opposing party‘s burden.
The evidence opposing a prima facie case on a motion for summary judgment must be competent and admissible, lest the rule permitting summary judgments be entirely eviscerated by plaintiff‘s proceeding to trial on the basis of mere conjecture or wishful speculation. Speculation, conjecture, the suggestion of a possibility, guesses, or even probability, are insufficient to establish an issue of material fact.
Alloway v. RT Capital, Inc., 2008 WY 123, ¶¶ 6-8, 193 P.3d 713, 715-16 (Wyo. 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In reviewing the grant оf a summary judgment, we do not defer to the district court as to issues of law. Lehr v. Bd. of Trs. of Hot Springs County Sch. Dist. No. 1, 2009 WY 89, ¶ 7, 209 P.3d 1290, 1294 (Wyo. 2009). We may affirm a grant of summary judgment on any proper legal basis supported by the record. Id.
DISCUSSION
Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment against the appellant on the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act claim?
[¶ 6] The Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA) provides at
(b) When commenced.—For purposes of statutes of limitation, an action shall be deemed commenced on the date of filing the complaint as to each defendant, if service is made on the defеndant or on a co-defendant who is a joint contractor or otherwise united in interest with the defendant, within 60 days after the filing of the complaint. If such service is not made within 60 days that action shall be
deemed commenced on the date when service is made....
(Emphasis added.)
[¶ 7] The sexual assault occurred on November 9, 2004. The appellant‘s claim was presented to Laramie County on June 15, 2006, well within the two-year period mandated by
Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the deputy on the state law tort claims?
[¶ 8] The appellant contends vigorously on appeal that, even if dismissal of the state law tort claims under the WGCA was appropriate, those claims should survive as personal claims against the deputy.4 Indeed,
Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the deputy on the federal civil rights claim?
[¶ 9] The district court‘s resolution of this issue, and this Court‘s reversal of that resolution, are best understood if placed within the context of the applicable law. In the restricted sense of a “civil rights action” such as the one at hand, a “civil right” is the “enjoyment of such guarantees as are contained in constitutional or statutory law, such as the ... guarantees found in particular amendments to the United States Constitution....” 15 Am.Jur.2d Civil Rights § 1 (2000). Adopted after the Civil War to enforce equаlity for former slaves, the Fourteenth Amendment has become the source of many civil rights and their protection, especially against infringement by the states. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[¶ 10] Section 5 gives Congress the authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment “by appropriate legislation.” Actions such as the present one have come to be called “1983 actions” because their foundation is in
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any
action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer‘s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(Emphasis added.)
[¶ 11] The purpose of § 1983 is “to deter state actors from using the badge of their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights” and to provide related relief.” Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 403 (1997) (emphasis in original) (quoting Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158, 161 (1992)).
[¶ 12] The concept of action performed “under color of state law” must not be confused with the question of whether a defendant is being sued in his “personal capacity” or in his “official capacity.” The latter distinction was described in Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 25 (1991) as follows:
In Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985), the Court sought to eliminate lingering confusion about the distinction between personal- and official-capacity suits. We emphasized that official-capacity suits “generally represent only another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent.” Id., at 165 (quoting Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690, n. 55 (1978)). Suits against state officials in their official capacity therefore should be treated as suits against the State. 473 U.S., at 166. Indeed, when officials sued in this capacity in federal court die or leave office, their successors automatically assume their roles in the litigation. See
Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 25(d)(1) ;Fed.Rule App.Proc. 43(c)(1) ; this Court‘s Rule 35.3. Because the real party in interest in an official-capacity suit is the governmental entity and not the named official, “the entity‘s ‘policy or custom’ must have played a part in the violation of federal law.” Graham, supra, at 166 (quoting Monell, supra, at 694). For the same reason, the only immunities available to the defendant in an official-capacity action are those that the governmental entity possesses. 473 U.S., at 167.Personal-capacity suits, on the other hand, seek to impose individual liability upon a government officer fоr actions taken under color of state law. Thus, “[o]n the merits, to establish personal liability in a § 1983 action, it is enough to show that the official, acting under color of state law, caused the deprivation of a federal right.” Id., at 166. While the plaintiff in a personal-capacity suit need not establish a connection to governmental “policy or custom,” officials sued in their personal capacities, unlike those sued in their official capacities, may assert personal immunity defenses such as objectively reasonable reliance on existing law. Id., at 166-67.
(Emphasis in original.)
[¶ 13] It goes without saying that the distinction between an offiсial-capacity § 1983 action and a personal-capacity § 1983 action is significant. Questions of both potential immunity and potential liability are answered by reference to the nature of the allegations in that regard. Id. at 24-31.
[¶ 14] This last observation leads naturally to a discussion of the appellant‘s § 1983 claim in the instant case. The ambiguity of the claim left both the deputy‘s trial attorney and the district court unsure as to whether a § 1983 claim was even being made against the deputy. The district court eventually decided that, if such a claim was being made, it was being made against the deputy in his official capacity. Finding no evidence of a county or sheriff‘s office custom or policy playing any part in the deputy‘s transgression, the district court granted the deputy‘s motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim.
[¶ 15] We find that we must disagree with the district court on this one issue. The fact that the appellant‘s WGCA and state law tort claims are presentеd as violations occurring within the scope of the deputy‘s duties—as doubt to fit within the WGCA—does not automatically equate to an allegation under § 1983 that the deputy was acting in his official capacity. In fact, a close reading of the complaint‘s fourth cause of action strongly suggests that the appellant intended to raise an official-capacity claim against the sheriff, and a personal-capacity claim against the deputy. Under that cause of action, the appellant alleges that the sheriff acted in his official capacity, but does not allege that thе deputy did so. Instead, the complaint alleges only that the deputy‘s actions were “accomplished under color of State law,” which is the language the United States Supreme Court has said is sufficient to state a personal-capacity claim under § 1983. Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25; West, 487 U.S. at 48. Further, the appellant also alleges that the sheriff “is the authority responsible for making official policy,” which phrase rings of an official-capacity suit, while the allegation against the deputy says nothing about policy. The “icing on the cake,” perhaps, is that in the complaint‘s caption, the sheriff is named as a defendant in his оfficial capacity, while the deputy is not.
[¶ 16] We conclude that the § 1983 claim against the deputy was made in his personal capacity, rather than than in his official capacity. Therefore, the summary judgment granted to the deputy on the claim must be reversed because it was based upon the district court‘s conclusion that there was no evidence the deputy had violated a custom or policy of the county or the sheriff‘s office. Such evidence is not required to show a personal-capacity violation of § 1983.
Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the sheriff оn the state law tort claims?
[¶ 17] It is somewhat difficult, with any assurance of accuracy, to identify from the complaint what state law tort claims the appellant intended to allege against the sheriff. Assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, are apparently intended to target both the deputy and the sheriff, while “failure to control detention officer,” is obviously “aimed” at the sheriff. The summary judgment as to assault and battery was not appealed, so we will ignore that cause of action. As to intentional infliction of emotional distress, the complaint alleges that the deputy аcted “while on duty as a detention officer in [sic] behalf of the Sheriff....” Such language suggests a respondeat superior theory of liability, if it is meant to be an accusation against the sheriff.
[¶ 18] The third cause of action—failure to control detention deputy—is confusing in and of itself, although it is no doubt directed at the sheriff. After citing
[¶ 19] In her appellate brief, the appellant clarifies her allegations against the sheriff as follows: “The [appellant] also sued the Sheriff in his official capacity based on state law claims, assault and battery, intentional infliction of еmotional distress, and breach of duty to keep the jail and prisoners safe pursuant to
[¶ 20] The district court granted summary judgment to the sheriff on the state law tort claims, after a complex analysis of nondelegable duty, statutory construction, and strict liability. We will affirm the summary judgment, but upon slightly different grounds. If
[¶ 21] The WGCA, at
[¶ 22] In summary, neither the sheriff nor the county is liable for the tortious conduct of the deputy because that conduct did not occur within the deputy‘s scope of duties, and neither the sheriff nor the county is liable for the conduct of the sheriff, even though within the scope of his duties, becausе his conduct was not tortious.
Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the sheriff on the federal civil rights claim?
[¶ 23] The appellant‘s § 1983 action against the sheriff is an action against the sheriff in his official capacity. As stated earlier herein, such an action is treated as a suit against the county, and it requires proof that a policy or custom of the governmental entity played a part in the violation of law. See supra ¶ 12; Hafer, 502 U.S. at 25; Graham, 473 U.S. at 166. Stated otherwise, a governmental entity “cannot be held liable solely because it employs a tortfeasor—or in other words ... on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. Dept of Soc. Servs. of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978) (emphasis in originаl). In more detail, the law is as follows:
We conclude, therefore, that a local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government‘s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.
Id. at 694. As the law has been further refined, a governmental entity may only be liable under § 1983 in quite particular circumstances:
As our § 1983 municipal liability jurisprudence illustrates, however, it is not enough for a § 1983 plaintiff merely to identify conduct properly attributable to the municipality. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that, through its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the “moving force” behind the injury alleged. That is, a plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with the requisite degree of culpability and must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights.
Bd. of County Comm‘rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997) (emphasis in original).
[¶ 24] It is redundant at this point for us to repeat the fact that no policy or custom of the county or the sheriff has been shown to have played any role in the deputy‘s conduct, except insofar as it has been shown that the deputy was violating a sheriff‘s office policy by his conduct. The appellant‘s reliance upon Starrett v. Jones, 81 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1238-39 (N.D.Ala.1999), aff‘d in part and reversed in part, 236 F.3d 678 (11th Cir. 2000), is misplaced. In that case, the court found that a sheriff could not immunize himself from § 1983 liability by arguing that a strip-search policy was not his own policy, but that of a jail contractor. Liability was based upon a policy that was, in effect, the sheriff‘s. That is not the case here, where no policy is involved.
[¶ 25] We will affirm the grant of summary judgment to the sheriff on the civil rights claim. The sheriff was sued in his official capacity, and there is no evidence that a custom or policy of the county or of thе sheriff played any part in the alleged violation of the appellant‘s civil rights.
CONCLUSION
[¶ 26] The district court appropriately granted summary judgment against the appellant on her claims under the WGCA because the Act‘s statute of limitations had run before the suit was commenced, which was
[¶ 27] We affirm the ruling of the district court, with the exсeption of the summary judgment granted to the deputy on the § 1983 personal-capacity action, and we remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with such ruling.
KITE, J., files a specially concurring opinion in which BURKE, J., joins.
KITE, J., specially concurring, in which BURKE, J., joins.
[¶ 28] I concur with the majority opinion, but write separately to address an issue raised by footnote 3. While the parties addressed the issue of whether the allegations in the complaint complied with this Court‘s jurisprudence, no argument was presented concerning whether failure to comply with the statute of limitations contained in