Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02861/USCOURTS-ca8-03-02861-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2861

___________

Sylvia Avalos, Mother and next friend *

of Nicholas Vasquez, a minor and *

incapacitated person; Nicholas *

Vasquez; Miguel “Michael” Vasquez, *

*

Plaintiffs/Appellees, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa.

City of Glenwood; City of Council *

Bluffs, IA; Mills County, IA; Harrison *

County, IA; Pottawattamie County, IA, *

*

Defendants/Appellants, *

*

Municipality A, Agency A; Agency B, *

*

Defendant, *

*

Southwest Iowa Multijurisdictional *

Drug Task Force, *

*

Defendant/Appellant, *

*

Unknown/Unnamed Defendants, Sued *

as John Doe I, John Doe II, John *

Doe III, John Doe IV and Jane Doe; *

*

Defendants, *

*

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-2-

Gerald Wake, also known as Bo Wake, *

*

Defendant/Appellant, *

*

Dirk Lincoln, *

*

Defendant. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2004

Filed: September 2, 2004

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, RILEY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

RILEY, Circuit Judge.

Detective Gerald Wake (Detective Wake) and several municipal defendants

appeal the district court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment based on

qualified immunity to Detective Wake, and on the merits of the plaintiffs’ substantive

due process claims against the municipal defendants. Concluding Detective Wake

is entitled to qualified immunity and the municipal defendants are entitled to

summary judgment, we reverse.

I. BACKGROUND

During the summer of 2000, sixteen-year-old Jessica Whetsel (Jessica) had a

relationship with eighteen-year-old Michael Vasquez (Michael). Jessica told Michael

her stepfather, Karl Voll (Karl), was likely to “do something to him” if Michael

“hurt” her. Michael eventually ended the relationship.

On April 5, 2001, Glenwood High School officials caught Jessica with small

plastic bags containing a red substance. Believing the substance to be drugs, school

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-3-

officials called the Glenwood Police, and Captain Dirk Lincoln (Captain Lincoln)

went to the school. School officials also called Jessica’s mother, Maria Voll (Maria),

to the school. Jessica told Captain Lincoln the substance was opium, but she would

not divulge the source. After Maria stated she would not answer questions until Karl

arrived, Jessica and Maria drove to the Glenwood Police Department to wait for Karl.

Pursuant to Glenwood Police Department practice, Captain Lincoln called the

Southwest Iowa Multijurisdictional Drug Task Force (Task Force) because of the

suspicion drugs were involved. Detective Wake, a Council Bluffs police officer and

Task Force member, took the call. Detective Wake and Detective Robert Daley

(Detective Daley) of the Pottawattamie County Sheriff’s Department, another Task

Force member, traveled to Glenwood to investigate.

Karl arrived before the Task Force officers. Captain Lincoln advised Karl of

the situation, and Karl asked to see the substance found on Jessica. Captain Lincoln

told Karl it had tested slightly positive for heroin. Karl became very upset. When

alone with Maria and Jessica, Karl asked Jessica about the substance. Jessica said it

was opium and that she got it from Michael and Nicholas Vasquez (Nicholas).

Michael and Nicholas are brothers.

After Captain Lincoln reentered the room, Karl asked him what charges Jessica

would face. Captain Lincoln stated Jessica could be charged with possessing a

controlled substance with intent to deliver and trafficking. Noting the Task Force

members would arrive shortly, Captain Lincoln told Karl it would be in his family’s

best interest to talk to the Task Force members who could “make things disappear.”

The Task Force members arrived and tested the substance, which again tested slightly

positive for heroin. 

The Task Force members then put pressure on Jessica in an effort to learn the

source of the drugs. Detective Daley informed Jessica of the seriousness of the

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-4-

situation and that Jessica could face an automatic sentence of twenty-five years.

Detective Wake then analogized the situation to a methamphetamine transaction,

telling Jessica a person could get a forty-year sentence for selling methamphetamine,

but the sentence could be as high as eighty years if the offense were committed on

school property. Despite the statements of Detective Daley and Detective Wake, in

Karl’s post-arrest statement to police, he questioned whether he could have “comped

an attorney” and “at the utmost got [Jessica] probation” for the offense.

The Task Force members told the family they wanted to know the source of the

substance, and the Volls again asked to speak privately with Jessica. Jessica said she

obtained the substance from Nicholas. Jessica told Maria and Karl she had agreed to

pay for the substance and to sell some of it at school. Karl and Maria gave this

information to the officers, who asked if the Volls would assist in a police

investigation. Karl hesitated until Maria told him a white powdery substance Karl

had concluded was a cleaning product had been sold to Jessica by the Vasquez

brothers, who had told Jessica the substance was a drug. Karl was then willing to

help the police. Karl suggested he go to the Vasquez home to try to buy drugs. At

some point during the interview, Karl also said he wanted to “kick the shit out of

those boys and take matters into his own hands.” Detective Daley responded, “maybe

in a perfect world, you could get away with it. But we’re here. Let us take care of it.”

Some officers chuckled in response to Karl’s statements, and one officer said,

“sounds like a good idea to me,” but the officers then told Karl, at length, they did not

want him involved in the investigation or the proposed transaction with the

Vasquezes.

The officers decided to use Maria rather than Karl, because she was more calm

and because of their concern Karl would make threats and taint the investigation. In

exchange for Jessica not being charged with possession of a controlled substance,

Maria agreed to be a confidential informant (CI). The officers fitted Maria with a

recording device (wire) and gave her two hundred dollars cash to pay the Vasquezes

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 4 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-5-

what Jessica owed. Detective Daley stated he wished the officers could just turn Karl

loose to take care of the situation. Detective Wake laughed at the suggestion. Karl,

who was anxious and angry, responded “give me five minutes, follow me after five

minutes, and we’ll call it a day.” Detective Daley told Karl the officers could not do

that, that they would not use Karl, and that Karl should not get involved. The officers

processed Maria as a CI. They did not conduct a background check on Karl, because

he was not going to be used as a CI. After Karl calmed down, the officers agreed to

allow Karl to drive Maria to the Vasquez apartment. The officers specifically told

Karl to stay in the car.

When Karl and Maria arrived at the Vasquez apartment, against the officers’

instructions, Karl went to the door with Maria. Karl made two tape-recorded threats

to Michael, Nicholas, and Jeremy Hogan (Hogan), a brother of the Vasquezes,

including a threat that he “will kill something” if they give Jessica “anything other

than to cop a buzz,” and made another tape-recorded threat, outside the Vasquez

brothers’ presence, to kill someone. Karl did not strike or harm Nicholas or Michael.

After the transaction, Detective Wake rebuked Karl for going to the door against the

officers’ directions. Karl apologized. 

Following the encounter, Michael, Nicholas, and Hogan were arrested.

Nicholas possessed pre-serialized currency and a small rock of the same substance

Jessica had earlier claimed was opium. Michael and Nicholas were charged with

conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance or simulated controlled substance.

Sylvia Avalos (Avalos), Michael’s and Nicholas’s mother, paid $500 to bail Nicholas

out of jail about two weeks later. Hogan testified his brothers were scared, and

Michael and Hogan claimed they told the officers they were afraid of Karl. Neither

Michael, Nicholas, nor Hogan ever lodged a written complaint against Karl.

After Michael, Nicholas, and Hogan were arrested, Jessica no longer lived with

the Volls. Jessica was placed in a juvenile facility, then ran away from the facility,

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 5 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-6-

and was later expelled from school. Rumors circulated that the Vasquezes threatened

to kidnap Jessica and physically harm her. Michael told Jessica he did not care about

what had happened, and the Volls “were going to get what was coming to them

through the cops.” Jessica informed the Volls of these statements.

Maria and Karl called Detective Wake a few weeks after April 5, 2001. The

Volls were concerned because Jessica had run away. Karl thought Jessica was still

seeing the Vasquezes, and Maria and Karl had heard the Vasquezes planned to kidnap

and assault Jessica. Karl ended the conversation by stating guns were not his “thing

anymore but if I have to I’ll get me one and I will take care of the problem myself.”

Detective Wake told Karl to stay away from the Vasquezes and discouraged Karl

from doing anything on his own. Detective Wake checked with some informants,

who had not heard about any threats made by the Vasquezes. Detective Wake also

did not think he could arrest Karl and did not think Karl had the means to carry out

his threat. Detective Wake had heard other citizens make threats on a routine basis,

but rarely did the threats result in action.

On May 11, 2001, the Volls received subpoenas to testify against Michael. The

same day, the Volls and Jessica went to a liquor store, where Karl bought a bottle of

tequila. After drinking the entire bottle, Karl left for the Vasquez apartment. Karl

went to the door and asked for Michael or Nicholas. Nicholas approached the door,

and he and Karl spoke in raised voices. Karl said Michael “hurt his baby’s heart.”

Nicholas replied that he did not care about Karl’s “baby.” Karl told Nicholas he had

better care, then shot Nicholas in the head, severely injuring him. Karl was arrested

the same day, telling police the Vasquezes had threatened Karl and his family. Later

convicted of attempted murder, Karl received a twenty-five year sentence.

Avalos, Michael, and Nicholas filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging (1)

the defendants violated their substantive due process, equal protection, and Fourth

Amendment rights; (2) the individual defendants conspired to violate Nicholas’s civil

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 6 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-7-

rights; (3) the municipal defendants’ practices, omissions, systematic deficiencies,

policies and customs encouraged Karl to assault Nicholas and failed to protect him

from harm; and (4) the defendants negligently caused Nicholas’s injuries. The

defendants filed motions for summary judgment on all claims, and the individual

defendants asserted qualified immunity on the constitutional claims. The district

court granted summary judgment to all defendants on all claims except the

substantive due process claims. The district court denied Detective Wake qualified

immunity on the substantive due process claims. The district court denied the

municipal defendants summary judgment on the substantive due process claims,

ruling the Task Force’s policies could have caused the violation. The district court

dismissed Michael because he was not a party to the first claim.

Detective Wake appeals, arguing the district court erred in denying him

qualified immunity, because his actions did not rise to the level of a constitutional

violation, and he did not act unreasonably in light of well-settled law. The municipal

defendants also appeal, arguing the district court erroneously denied their summary

judgment motions because Detective Wake’s conduct did not violate a constitutional

right, and the district court failed to apply the correct deliberate indifference standard

for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Although the denial of summary judgment is generally an unappealable,

nonfinal order, a district court’s denial of qualified immunity is immediately

appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Hawkins v. Holloway, 316 F.3d 777,

781 (8th Cir. 2003). We review de novo the denial of qualified immunity. Tuggle

v. Mangan, 348 F.3d 714, 719 (8th Cir. 2003).

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 7 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-8-

B. Qualified Immunity

When performing discretionary functions, government officials generally are

shielded from civil liability so long “as their conduct does not violate clearly

established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have

known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). “Qualified immunity ‘is

an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,’ which ‘is effectively

lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.’” Tuggle, 348 F.3d at 720

(quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). Qualified immunity is

available “to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”

Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). “Officials are not liable for bad guesses

in gray areas; they are liable for transgressing bright lines.” Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d

703, 712 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted).

When analyzing qualified immunity, courts conduct a two-part inquiry. The

court must first consider the threshold inquiry of whether the facts alleged, taken in

the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, show the defendants’

conduct violated a constitutional right. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001);

Tuggle, 348 F.3d at 720. If a constitutional right has not been violated, it is

unnecessary to inquire further regarding qualified immunity. Saucier, 533 U.S. at

201. If a violation could be established on the facts alleged, the second inquiry is

whether the right was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. Id.

1. Violation of a Constitutional Right

The plaintiffs claim their clearly established rights were violated when the

defendants “increased the potential for harm to them by encouraging, supporting, and

condoning the assault of a third party upon them.” The plaintiffs also argue the

actions were “conscience shocking.” Because the issue before us is the district

court’s denial of qualified immunity, we focus here only on Detective Wake’s actions.

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 8 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-9-

States have no general affirmative obligation to protect individuals against

private violence. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S.

189, 197 (1989). The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is phrased

as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels

of safety and security.” Id. at 195. “Its purpose [is] to protect the people from the

State, not to ensure that the State protect[s] them from each other.” Id. at 196. The

“State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not

constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.” Id. at 197.

However, substantive due process requires a state to protect individuals under

two theories. First, the state owes a duty to protect those in its custody. Gregory v.

City of Rogers, 974 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 1992) (en banc). Second, the state

owes a duty to protect individuals if the state created the danger to which the

individuals are subjected. Id. The plaintiffs in this case rely on the “state-created

danger” theory.

The due process clause’s “guarantee does not entail a body of constitutional

law imposing liability whenever someone cloaked with state authority causes

harm[,]” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 848 (1998), and “does not

transform every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation,”

DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 202. “[T]he test we employ to ascertain a valid substantive

due process violation is ‘whether the behavior of the governmental officer is so

egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary

conscience.’” Hawkins, 316 F.3d at 780 (quoting Lewis, 523 U.S. at 848 n.8). Under

the state-created danger theory, the plaintiffs must prove (1) they were members of

a limited, precisely definable group; (2) Detective Wake’s conduct put the plaintiffs

at significant risk of serious, immediate, and proximate harm; (3) the risk was obvious

or known to Detective Wake; (4) Detective Wake acted recklessly in conscious

disregard of the risk; and (5) in total, Detective Wake’s conduct shocks the

conscience. Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567, 574 (10th Cir. 1995). Mere negligence

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 9 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-10-

is not conscience-shocking and cannot support a claim alleging a violation of a

plaintiff’s substantive due process rights. Terry B. v. Gilkey, 229 F.3d 680, 684 (8th

Cir. 2000).

“[I]f the state acts affirmatively to place someone in a position of danger that

he or she would not otherwise have faced, the state actor, depending on his or her

state of mind, may have committed a constitutional tort.” S.S. v. McMullen, 225 F.3d

960, 962 (8th Cir. 2000) (en banc). In DeShaney, the Court observed that the state

was not a “permanent guarantor” of the safety of a child removed from custody of an

abusive father, but eventually placed back in that father’s custody. DeShaney, 489

U.S. at 201. In ruling the state had no constitutional duty to protect the child, the

Court noted that, although the state might have been aware of dangers the plaintiff

faced, “it played no part in their creation, nor did it do anything to render him any

more vulnerable to them.” Id.

We conclude the plaintiffs failed to show Detective Wake violated their

substantive due process rights. Nothing Detective Wake actually did made the

Vasquezes any more vulnerable than they would have been once Karl discovered

Jessica’s involvement with the Vasquezes and drugs. Detective Wake had no grounds

to arrest or restrain Karl, could not have held Nicholas once he posted bond, and did

not cause Karl to get drunk and go to the Vasquez apartment more than five weeks

after the initial encounter between Karl and the Vasquezes. Detective Wake was

essentially a messenger who, as part of his duties, informed Karl about the

investigation and used Karl’s wife Maria as a CI on one occasion. That Karl acted

violently and unpredictably more than five weeks later does not give rise to a

substantive due process claim. Further, assuming Detective Wake’s actions on April

5, 2001, created some danger to the Vasquezes, Detective Wake’s actions did not

transform Detective Wake into a “permanent guarantor” of the safety of the

Vasquezes until May 11, 2001. As we have observed, “[m]ere knowledge of danger

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 10 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-11-

to the individual does not create an affirmative duty to protect.” Carlton v. Cleburne

County, 93 F.3d 505, 509 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200).

Additionally, Detective Wake’s actions did not place Nicholas in any greater

danger than he otherwise would have faced. Karl’s anger and threats were not the

result of the officers’ statements, but were made “in reference to anyone giving [his]

daughter any more drugs to sell for them” and in response to Michael’s “hurting

[Jessica’s] heart.” Before Detective Wake arrived, Karl became angry when Captain

Lincoln told Karl the substance Jessica possessed tested positive for heroin. Karl was

understandably upset, as any concerned parent would be, and the fact he made a threat

at the time did not make it obvious or inevitable Karl would harm Nicholas five

weeks later. Furthermore, any claim that the officers’ deception of Jessica and her

family about her possible sentence in any way caused the shooting is baseless

because, before the shooting date, the state decided not to prosecute Jessica at all.

Furthermore, Karl’s anger was apparently triggered or fueled immediately

before the shooting by the breakup between Michael and Jessica. When Karl,

intoxicated with tequila, confronted Nicholas on May 11, 2001, the shooting resulted,

not from the drug investigation, but when Karl told Nicholas that Michael “hurt his

baby’s [Jessica’s] heart,” and Nicholas responded by saying he did not care about

Karl’s baby’s heart. Karl retaliated by stating Nicholas had better care, and then Karl

shot Nicholas.

Even assuming Detective Wake had a duty to protect Nicholas from Karl, the

plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a substantive due process violation because Detective

Wake’s actions were not “conscience-shocking.” Actionable substantive due process

claims involve a “‘level of . . . abuse of power’ . . . ‘so “brutal” and “offensive” that

[they do] not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency.’” S.S., 225 F.3d

at 964 (citations omitted). The shooting in this case was simply too remote a

consequence to constitute a substantive due process violation. Detective Wake’s

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 11 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-12-

actions relative to the investigation clearly were neither immediate nor proximate to

the shooting. See Dorothy J. v. Little Rock Sch. Dist., 7 F.3d 729, 733 n.4 (8th Cir.

1993) (“In most every circuit court decision imposing § 1983 liability because the

State affirmatively created or enhanced a danger, ‘the immediate threat of harm has

a limited range and duration.’”) (citation omitted).

Detective Wake’s actions also do not shock the conscience by intentionally or

wrongfully disregarding a known danger by failing to conduct a background check

on Karl. Detective Wake did not know about Karl’s criminal history. However, (1)

the officers did not use Karl as a CI; (2) the officers testified they told Karl not to get

involved; and (3) Karl and Maria testified the officers told Karl to stay out of the

investigation. Thus, Detective Wake’s failure to investigate Karl cannot be

considered more than negligence. See Terry B., 229 F.3d at 684. Had Detective

Wake done the background check on Karl, this would have merely reinforced the

decision not to use Karl as a CI. The officers’ failure to conduct a background check

on a person they did not intend to use as a CI is not conscience-shocking.

To find Detective Wake violated the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights

in this case would create a difficult situation for police officers. Requiring officers

to act upon every threat they hear could expose the officers to claims of civil liability

for false arrest. Ricketts v. City of Columbia, 36 F.3d 775, 780 (8th Cir. 1994). In

Ricketts, we observed that to hold an officer’s failure to arrest an individual for one

incident of harassment which causes a subsequent incident of violence would remove

a fundamental part of our criminal justice system–an officer’s discretion to decide

when to arrest. Id. Such a holding “would open up municipalities to unprecedented

liability under § 1983.” Id. (quoting City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391

(1989)). In this case, no probable cause or other reasonable justification existed for

detaining Karl on April 5, 2001, or anytime before the shooting on May 11, 2001.

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 12 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
1

We recognize the “inextricably intertwined” doctrine is a judicially created

exception to the final order rule. Our case appears to fall closer to Kincade than it

does to Veneklase v. City of Fargo, 78 F.3d 1264, 1269-70 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding

interlocutory appeal of municipal liability issue not properly before court), because

the claims against the municipalities are inextricably intertwined with the qualified

immunity issue, as more fully set forth in the body of our opinion.

-13-

2. Clearly Established Right

Because we conclude Detective Wake did not violate the plaintiffs’ substantive

due process rights, we need not address the alternative question of whether any

substantive due process rights the plaintiffs assert were clearly established at the time

of Detective Wake’s conduct. See Tuggle, 348 F.3d at 723.

C. Inextricably Intertwined

The municipal defendants also argue that, because the claims against them are

intertwined with our qualified immunity decision, we have jurisdiction to decide

whether summary judgment was improperly denied. The municipal defendants also

argue the district court failed to apply the correct standard to the claims against the

Task Force members. When an interlocutory appeal of a qualified immunity denial

is before us, we also have jurisdiction to decide closely related legal issues such as

pendent appellate claims. Kincade v. City of Blue Springs, 64 F.3d 389, 394 (8th Cir.

1995). Appeals are permitted from “final decision[s] by which a district court

disassociates itself from a case, but also from a small category of decisions that,

although they do not end the litigation, must nonetheless be considered ‘final.’”

Swint v. Chambers County Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 42 (1995); 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Pendent claims are considered “inextricably intertwined” with other properly

presented claims “only if the pendent claim is coterminous with, or subsumed in, the

claim before the court on interlocutory appeal–that is, when the appellate resolution

of the collateral appeal necessarily resolves the pendent claim as well.” Kincade, 64

F.3d at 394 (citation omitted).1

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 13 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-14-

In denying summary judgment for the municipal defendants, the district court

stated the plaintiffs claimed the policies of the Task Force and its members violated

Nicholas’s constitutional right to substantive due process. The district court then

concluded the plaintiffs presented a sufficient claim against the municipal defendants

based on the deficiencies of the Task Force policies and procedures. The district

court reasoned Karl was as much a CI as Maria because the officers allowed him to

accompany her. The Task Force policies at issue here are the rules regarding the use

of CIs. The district court examined the Task Force policies regarding “Confidential

Informant Management” and noted the policies have “a number of glaring

deficiencies” and are insufficient when compared to the United States Attorney

General’s guidelines and the Association of Chiefs of Police model guidelines

regarding use of CIs. The primary inadequacies cited were the municipal defendants

have no requirement that officers “seek any form of approval, or give any further

thought to sending angry parents as CIs on a drug sting operation while their daughter

waited in jail expecting to go to prison for the next eighty years.” The district court

stated the inadequacies in the Task Force policies are “appalling” and such failings

“shock the conscience.”

Municipalities are “liable under Section 1983 only if a municipal custom or

policy caused the deprivation of the right protected by the constitution or federal

laws,” Angarita v. St. Louis County, 981 F.2d 1537, 1546 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978)), or the “municipal

policy or custom was the ‘moving force [behind] the constitutional violation,’”

Mettler v. Whitledge, 165 F.3d 1197, 1204 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S.

at 694). For there to be section 1983 liability, “there must first be a violation of the

plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773, 777

(8th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). “[A] municipality may be held liable for the

unconstitutional acts of its officials or employees when those acts implement or

execute an unconstitutional municipal policy or custom.” Mettler, 165 F.3d at 1204.

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 14 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655 
-15-

Under this standard, there must be an unconstitutional act by the municipal employee

before the municipality is liable.

We conclude our decision on Detective Wake’s entitlement to qualified

immunity “necessarily resolves” the remaining claims in the municipal defendants’

favor. Lockridge v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark., 315 F.3d 1005, 1013 (8th Cir.

2003) (en banc). As discussed in the previous section, we conclude the plaintiffs

have failed to establish a violation of their substantive due process rights. Try as they

might, the plaintiffs simply have not demonstrated any of the municipal defendants’

policies applied to Karl, who was not a CI. Karl, Maria, Detective Wake, and

Detective Daley all stated under oath Karl was never enlisted as a CI. Indeed, the

Task Force officers specifically and repeatedly instructed Karl not to get involved in

the investigation. Regardless of any alleged deficiencies in the Task Force’s

procedures, they did not apply to Karl. Thus, the plaintiffs are unable to show either

(1) a deprivation of a constitutional right or (2) a municipal custom or policy that

caused such deprivation. See Angarita, 981 F.2d at 1546.

III. CONCLUSION 

We reverse the district court’s decision denying (1) Detective Wake’s summary

judgment motion based on qualified immunity, and (2) the municipal defendants’

summary judgment motions. We remand for entry of judgment in the defendants’

favor.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-2861 Page: 15 Date Filed: 09/02/2004 Entry ID: 1806655