Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04143/USCOURTS-ca10-89-04143-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Ci:-cuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 3 0 LB 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

RICHARD G. HOCK, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

MORGAN COUNTY, a political sub-) 

division of the State of Utah; ) 

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MORGAN ) 

COUNTY, in their individual and) 

official capacities; and the ) 

following persons in their offi-) 

cial and individual capacities: ) 

BERT HOLBROOK, Morgan County ) 

Sheriff, MAX ROBINSON, former ) 

Sheriff of Morgan County, ) 

STEVEN KARL SEIM, and JOHN/JANE) 

DOES 1-10, officials and ) 

employees of Morgan County, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Clerk 

No. 89-4143 

(D.C. No. 88-NC-066S) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-4143 Document: 010110083577 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Richard Hock claims his constitutional rights were 

violated when he was arrested by Steven Seim, Deputy Sheriff for 

Morgan County and part-time park ranger for the state of Utah. 

The United States District Court for the District of Utah 

dismissed his complaint based on the pleadings. We affirm. 

About 7:30 p.m. on August 13, 1986, Mr. Seim was on duty as a 

state park ranger. In the parking lot of East Canyon State Park, 

he cited Mr. Hock for criminal violations of jet ski laws. When 

Mr. Hock persisted in demanding an explanation, Mr. Seim allegedly 

became verbally and physically belligerent and then arrested Mr. 

Hock. Prior to August 13, 1986, Mr. Seim had been employed as a 

Morgan County Deputy Sheriff for several months and had allegedly 

acquired a reputation for acting unreasonably during arrests. Mr. 

Hock complains that Mr. Seim was negligently hired, and then 

improperly trained and supervised. 

Mr. Hock originally filed suit against the state of Utah, 

Morgan County, various state and county officials in their 

individual and official capacities, and Steven Seim in his 

individual, state employee, and municipal employee capacities. 

When the claims against the state defendants, including Mr. Seim 

in his state employee capacity, were settled, Mr. Hock's suit 

• proceeded to district court against the remaining defendants. In 

Mr. Hock's second amended complaint, those defendants were Morgan 

County, the County Commissioners, and the following persons in 

their official and individual capacities: Steven Seim; Bert 

Holbrook, the current County Sheriff; Max Robinson, the former 

County Sheriff; and John/Jane Does 1-10, County employees in 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-4143 Document: 010110083577 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 2 
charge of Mr. Seim's hiring and supervision. The District Court 

of Utah granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

We review a judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(c) in the same manner as we review a dismissal under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Bishop v. Federal Intermediate Credit 

Bank of Wichita, 908 F.2d 658, 663 (10th Cir. 1990). We consider 

the issue de novo and decide whether the plaintiff's allegations 

support a cause of action. 

The only issue before us on appeal is whether Mr. Hock has 

stated a cause of action against Morgan County and the various 

county officials in their official capacities1 under 42 u.s.c. 

§ 1983. 2 The claims against Mr. Steven Seim for unlawful arrest 

and use of excessive force are not discussed in Mr. Hock's 

appellate brief, nor is the claim against several of the 

defendants for malicious prosecution. Although various county 

officials were named in their individual capacities in the 

1These defendants are the County Commissioners, Bert Holbrook, Max 

Robinson, and John/Jane Does 1-10. 

2Defendants argue that we have no jurisdiction to review claims 

against any defendants other than Morgan County because the notice 

of appeal identified appellees only as "Morgan County, et al." We 

decline defendants' invitation to apply Torres v. Oakland 

Scavenger Co., 108 S. Ct. 2405 (1988), to unnamed appellees. 

Torres held that appellate courts have no jurisdiction over 

appe l lants only referred to as "et al." in the notice of appeal. 

Th e Seventh Circuit points out that Torres "is based upon 

Fed. R. App. P. 3(c), which requires that appellants be named but 

does not require that appellees be specified." Chathas v. Smith, 

884 F.2d 980, 986, n.3 (7th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 

1169 (1990). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit, in Chicano Educ. & 

Manpower Servs. v. Department of Labor, 909 F.2d 1320, 1329 (9th 

Cir. 1990), recognized that "Torres was not announcing a general 

rule of appellate jurisdiction; it was interpreting a specific 

rule of procedure. That rule places certain requirements on 

parties bringing an appeal." 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-4143 Document: 010110083577 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 3 
complaint, no theory of liability is presented in the pleadings or 

the appellate brief. 

Mr. Hock's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is that Morgan County 

and its officials are liable for inadequate training and 

supervision of Mr. Seim. In City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, the 

Supreme Court established that municipalities can only be liable 

under§ 1983 for inadequate police training "where the failure to 

train amounts to deliberate indifference ... II 109 S. Ct. 

1197, 1204 (1989). The "deliberate indifference" standard applies 

also to the County officials sued in their official capacities 

since "official-capacity suits generally represent only another 

way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is 

an agent II Monell v. Department of Soc. Servs. of City of 

N.Y., 98 S. Ct. 2018, 2035, n.55 (1978). 

Mr. Hock alleges that Mr. Seim had a history of 

unconstitutional conduct during arrests. However, throughout his 

complaint, he alleges only that the defendants were "grossly 

negligent" in failing to respond to Mr. Seim's behavior through 

proper training and supervision. The Supreme Court in Canton 

specifically rejected gross negligence as a basis for holding a 

municipality liable under§ 1983 for failure to train. 109 s. Ct. 

at 1201 and 1204, n.7. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Utah is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-4143 Document: 010110083577 Date Filed: 01/30/1991 Page: 4