Elaine Deaton v. Montgomery County, Ohio
989 F.2d 885
6th Cir.
1993
Check Treatment

*1 LAMBROS, District Judges; and Chief Judge.* LAMBROS, Judge. District Chief deter- requires this court to This case contracts mine whether manage operate municipality to with a temporarily house its facilities held liable depriva- 1983 for constitutional 42 U.S.C. § custom, policy prac- resulting from tions Furthermore, municipality. tice of county ratified determine whether must municipal- of a conduct unconstitutional county prisoners has ity, to which care of county knew delegated, if the been conduct but known of such should have prisoners steps protect failed to facility operated in a temporarily housed municipality. denying order appeal from an summary judgment their motion * Ohio, by designa- Lambros, sitting Northern District D. Chief Honorable Thomas tion. Judge, Court for the United States District *2 blocking trespassing for criminal defendants’ granting liability and issue of plain- The clinic. abortion Contrary of an entrance judgment. summary motion several Kettering for held defendants tiffs were that contention plaintiffs’

to Mont- transported to plaintiffs’ they were to until indifferent hours deliberately were plaintiffs were 1) The County defendants Jail. gomery when: safety rights and incar- proper procedures booked, or otherwise housed that ensure never failed to Jail; Day- they County at the the staff by at while followed would be cerated 2) Center, and they were however, that informed were, Human Rehabilitation ton any action after contempt to of court failed charged with being defendants searches, the district strip injunction issued learning anti-picketing violating an County assume Pleas County Common Montgomery court by operates Municipality Meagher. that the Judge John an and such law state in accordance County overcrowding at the Because to amount deliberate not assumption does transported to plaintiffs were facility, addition, the district court indifference. Day- Facility at Misdemeanant Female demon- defendants if the even held that (hereinaf- Center Human Rehabilitation ton failing to indifference deliberate strated at DHRC). plaintiffs were held The ter had been plaintiffs learning that act after incar- days. While eleven six DHRC for to searched, indifference this would strip sub- facility, plaintiffs were at cerated injury to subse- cause proximate strip and/or visual one to at least jected plaintiffs. quent staff even by DHRC cavity body search was plaintiffs’ conduct though the I no had staff threatening the DHRC and regard to dispute with little There they a threat suspect that were reason 13, 1987, January On in this case. facts con- they carrying security were or that County Board of Commissioners conducted The were searches traband. (hereinafter the Coun- Montgomery from participation employees without City agreement with lease into a ty) entered County. any agent of the City) (hereinafter Dayton City of suit, Sher- filing plaintiffs’ to the Prior and construct County would whereby the County jail Montgomery iff of the Haines Misdemeanant regional Female maintain con- being illegal heard never City’s Human Reha- at the Facility located and assumed at DHRC ducted completion, the Center, upon and bilitation compliance with Ohio was in Center operate the manage and City agreed cavity body and strip visual regarding agreement purpose of The facility. searches. overcrowding at the Coun- to alleviate provided further ty Jail. plaintiffs filed On March that: Gary County, Sheriff Montgomery and free hold City sheriff, shall Haines, individually and as [t]he liability aris- any and all from harmless of Mont- County Commissioners Board Regional City’s operation Does, ing from individ- ten County and Jane hold Facility. Female County jail em- Montgomery ually and as any and all liabil- from and harmless free of Ohio Revised alleging violation ployees,1 ownership of the arising ity plaintiffs' 2933.32 violation Code § Facility for the con- Regional Female rights giving rise Amendment Fourth of same. struction Defen- liability under U.S.C. § 1991, 13, May answer on filed an 1989, dants were 24, March On judg- summary by a motion charged followed Kettering, Ohio arrested com- their never amended thought to be searches. were Does ten Jane 1. The However, DHRC, City Dayton or County. plaint to include employees of answer, plaintiffs employees conducted who Commissioners’ the strip DHRC, they at were held told that were city employees who conducted Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534 January Gutierrez v. July 1991. On ment filed on Cir.1987). summary judgment, granted court defen- On the district “[f]ae- summary judgment, disputes de- that are motion for tual unnec- dants’ summary judg- Anderson, plaintiffs’ motion for essary nied will not be counted.” claims the state law ment and dismissed at 2510. The *3 prejudice. without must turn to the substantive law in Court determining facts are which material. Id.

II review, appeals court of Upon III passing upon an apply the test is to same imposes duty The Ohio Revised Code summary as that uti judgment of award jail maintain on counties to facilities. Sec- grant the motion. by the trial court to lized 307.01(A) pertinent part: tion states “[a] v. Glenway Industries Inc. Wheelabrator- jail provided by the ... ... board Cir.1982) Inc., 417 686 F.2d Frye when, county judg- of commissioners in its Candies, (citing Howard v. Russell Stover ment, Furthermore, needed.” the is] [one (8th Cir.1981)). Inc., In other 649 F.2d 620 agreement county may enter into an with a words, are reviewed summary judgments municipal corporation carry duty out the v. E.I. Du appeal. Higgins on de novo 307.01(A). arising under O.R.C. Ohio Re- Co., 863 F.2d de Nemours & Pont 307.15 states: vised Code § (4th Cir.1988). 1166 county may commissioners board [t]he 56(c) the Federal Rules of Civil Rule legisla- the agreement enter into an with summary judgment provides for Procedure authority any municipal corpora- tive where: tion, whereby legislative the authori- ... in- pleadings, depositions, answers to the corporation under- ty any municipal file, to- terrogatories, admissions on and board, takes, by the and is authorized affidavits, any, if show gether with the any any perform func- exercise power, genuine any issue as to that there is no tion, service, in behalf of or render moving party and that the material fact board, the coun- county or the the judgment to a as a matter is entitled exercise, perform, or ty or the board law. render. Catrett, Corp. 477 U.S. also Celotex v. See commissioners, city, the A like board (1986). 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 106 S.Ct. erect, establish, maintain permitted to is “[Tjhis provides that the mere standard O.R.C. regulate jails pursuant and alleged dispute existence of some factual 715.16. parties an oth- the will not defeat between sum- properly supported erwise motion for IV requirement is that mary judgment; the genuine be no issue material there entities, the governmental Both Inc., Liberty Lobby, v. fact.” Anderson permitted to maintain City, the are and 247-48, 2505, 2510, U.S. facilities, un- permitted, each (1986) (emphasis origi- L.Ed.2d 202 agreements to enter into der Ohio nal). concerning the maintenance of each other 1987, Montgomery facilities. In presented summary judg- with a such When Dayton into motion, entered drawn ment “the inferences to be to that an underlying facts ... must be such erected the agreement, light in the most favorable to viewed physical plant and and maintained the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita facility. operated the Corp., City managed and v. Zenith Radio Elec. Indus. Co. 574, 587, 1348, 1356, question the 89 There is no 475 U.S. 106 S.Ct. agree- law and the (1986) (quoting accordance with Ohio

L.Ed.2d 538 United States enti- Diebold, Inc., 654, 655, governmental ment between two 82 S.Ct. (1962)); ties is valid. 8 L.Ed.2d 176 see also enti- private and customs policies agree argued that in ty. require the not did ment think it is We law. state delegated to a Ancata, duty agreement between ultimately liability entity and private forth City did not set County and under a no- with the remained in main City to follow standards superior, but respondeat tion of facility because operating taining and policy of entity became the policy of the are, to operation City’s standards case, In the instant default. and, extent, governed some entity. dealing with arewe body cavity standard specifically, en- Rather, another have in O.R.C. as set forth authority to statutory tity its own City’s procedures. governs 2933.32 *4 entity is separate this prisoners, and house type of prohibits statute This the statute by the same as bound hy or medical legitimate searches save cavity body strip and visual regard with to to cause probable or where gienic reasons operate manage and duty to The do so exists. the City and belongs to the to required County are both City and The implement it chooses to policy custom or regardless of statute this comply with County be- that of the does not become for com- provides agreement' whether statutory au- separate has cause that one logical us to It seems pliance. Therefore, any prisoners. thority to house entity, a may assume plaintiffs’ violations constitutional inis housing prisoners, County, City, result rights were the state law. policy. V au- supplemental notice of Plaintiffs filed 10, on thority court November with the heavily rely on While notice, plaintiffs cite Burton In that 1992. Prison v. case of Ancata Circuit Eleventh Authority, 365 Parking Wilmington v. (11th Inc., 700 769 F.2d Health Services 856, 861, 6 L.Ed.2d 715, 725, 81 S.Ct. U.S. court Cir.1984), held where (1961) states: 45 liability for Con itself from cannot absolve by prisoners against stitutional violations its may effectively abdicate ... no State entities, the private away, with contracting them by ignoring either responsibilities distinguish duty owed to discharge them failing to merely by case. the instant case from this inaction, By its the motive.... whatever State, representa- through it Ancata, personal Authority, and plaintiff, deceased, ..., brought party but a only made itself tive of the has not estate against power, property 1983 place to 42 U.S.C. to has elected Prison and the county, the sheriff discrim- the admitted prestige behind alleged cruel Plaintiff Health far insinuated Services.2 has so The State ination. ,of on deliber- punishment based unusual interdependence position into itself a medical prisoner’s ate indifference recognized as must be Eagle with all dismissed court district needs. The joint participant.... a appeal, On all defendants. claims say that: went on The court however that state and the Eleventh readily applicable formulae [bjecause obligation to have an governments local fashioned, conclusions may not be indi- care to incarcerated provide medical facts and circumstances drawn from duty is not absolved viduals and no declared are means of this record entity. Even private contracting with a of which on the basis truths as universal entity though contracted is to be leasing every state obligation of perform an tested. liable for county itself remains care to inmates. providing medical entity responsi- ble for Health Services Prison

889 plainly imposes liability language on a the distinction be This court notes that, governmental entity instant case. The under the color this case and the tween private/govern policy, employ- deals a official “causes” an Burton case of some ease entity relationship and the be rights. mental another’s constitutional ee to violate separate governmen us involves two Congress fore 98 at 2036. did Id. interdependence in this tal entities. liability not intend to attach where joint make the a instance does not causation is absent. governmental entity participant since each causation, respect to the With issue compliance required to with Ohio Cleveland, the court Molton Moreover, each is re law. Cir.1988), F.2d cert. de quired compliance with Ohio nied, 489 U.S. 109 S.Ct. adopts the we do not believe (1989), plaintiff L.Ed.2d 814 noted that the showing City’s policy by default absent never adduced evidence of definitive indifference. of deliberate custom, policy, usage an af which was link, moving firmative force that ani VI mated the behavior—the acts of commis part: 42 U.S.C. 1983 states police officers that sion or omission—of who, under color of [ejvery person in the constitutional al resulted violations *5 custom, statute, ordinance, or regulation, leged. State, subjects, or usage, any ... of petitioner in the instant case need While any subjected, citizen causes proof required supply quantum person within the States or other United Molton, plaintiff plaintiffs in must deprivation thereof to the jurisdiction present enough evidence to survive defen- se- any rights, privileges, or immunities summary judgment. dants’ motion for laws, cured the Constitution (cid:127) do not meet their burden party injured in an action be liable to the of fact ex- showing that a material issue proper equity, or other words, plaintiffs did not ists. In other proceeding for redress. genuine a issue of that there was show plaintiffs prevail In order for the regard to deliberate material fact with claim, they must show delib on this § part indifference part of the Coun erate indifference on the There is no assertion that the Sheriff. find the ty Sheriff. We and/or agents caused the constitu- County or its properly applied the deliber district court policy trans- or that the tional violation In indifference standard. Monell v. ate moving was the porting prisoners to DHRC City Department Social Services “animated the behavior.” force that York, New of 2018, there simply assert that Plaintiffs cannot (1978) the Court 56 L.Ed.2d 611 because the deliberate indifference was held: City between against read the back- [section] proper require the.City to follow did not history, legislative ground of the same above, the jail procedures. As we stated Congress did compels that the conclusion proper jail pro- required to follow municipalities to be held liable not intend therefore, is, It cedures under Ohio law. to official munici- unless action agreement between that a consti- pal policy of some nature caused governmental entities was void these two particular, In we conclude tutional tort. requirement. of such municipality cannot be held liable that a tortfeasor-or, employs a solely do not believe that Sheriff We words, municipality cannot be in other an- affirmative Montgomery County has respondeat held liable under 1983 on § follow- is duty to whether discover superior theory. present- no facts ing state law. There are indicating sheriff knew or ed that analyzing specific language strip known that searches that should have the court in Monell concluded case, it is unfortunate particular In this of state law. in violation conducted were prop- did not plaintiffs counsel that indiffer- deliberate where cases In other identity of the legal investigate erly found, county was has been ence searches, strip performed actors who inaction, or that own action for its liable suit until did not file two apparently instant case deals entity. The aof years two expiration of days before governed with another were thus the incident. Plaintiffs County. The as the laws by the same advantage of unable to apparently authority statutory independent has presented Mont- that was information doing so was re- prisoners and house However, poor County’s answer. law. It is for comply with quired to behalf liability on cannot create lawyering Montgomery that we find this reason that County, that did entity, of an not liable. U.S.C. violate duties presented which would evidence No in the court’s concur I therefore knew the Sheriff us to conclude allow opinion. filing of prior to the plaintiffs When in district court. this suit defendants, defendants

filed suit City may not notice then on

were state law

be in point County after this

inaction indiffer- deliberate

might make a case for claim under rise to a giving ence BILLISH, et Plaintiffs- Earl Subsequent pris- those assuming of course Appellants, illegal strip subjected to oners were words, In other *6 bring suit since party to proper are not CHICAGO, al., et OF CITY indif- showing of deliberate there was no Defendants-Appellees. part them ference toward UNION, County. FIRE FIGHTERS CHICAGO al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, et VII upon above For the reasons stated DALEY, et Richard M. case, we affirm of this

de novo review Defendants-Appellees. decision. district court’s 90-1650, 90-2182. Nos. concurring. BOGGS, Judge, Appeals, Court of United States Seventh Circuit. out, Mont- correctly points the court As liable, under cannot 7, 1990. Argued Dec. case, availing itself of facts of 4,May 1992. Decided to contract for opportunity jail space. shared Reargued En Dec. 1992. Banc enable authorities opinion This does Decided March per- responsibility slough off their legal owner- game” with form a “shell cer-

ship prisons. the extent that

tainly could held liable knowledge or direction

it had about by the being carried out

policies contract, extent that was or to the poli- those

deliberately to what indifferent

cies were.