# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 7- 20 79

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

S y l v i a Pe rk ins

, as a Pe rs ona l Re pr es en ta tiv e of the E s t a t e o f B o b b y M o o r e

, I I I

, d e c e a s e d

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Jo sh ua Hast in gs , in hi s i nd iv id ua l an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es ; St ua rt Th om as , in hi s

in di vi du al an d o ffi ci al cap aci ti es ; Li tt le Ro ck , Cit y of, a m un ic ip al it y

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 2, 2 01 8

Fi le d: Feb ru ary 7, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re SM ITH, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and LOKEN, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

W OLLMAN, Circ ui t J ud ge

.

Lit tl e Ro ck

, Ark an sa s, Po li ce Offi cer Jo sh ua Has ti ng s sh ot an d ki ll ed fif te en

y ear- ol d Bo bb y Mo or e III, on Aug us t 1 2

, 2 0 1 2

. Mo or e’s m ot he r, Sy lv ia Perk in s,

act in g as a pe rs on al rep res en ta ti v e o f h i s e st at e, fil ed su it ag ai ns t Offi cer Has ti ng s,

Po li ce Ch ie f St ua rt Tho m as

, an d th e Ci ty of Lit tl e Ro ck

, al le gi ng cl ai m s u n de r 42U.S.C. § 19 83 an d st at e la w. The di st ric t co ur t 1 gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or

of Tho m as an d th e Ci ty, an d th e cas e ag ai ns t Has ti ng s pr oc eed ed to tri al

. A jury

fo un d th at Has ti ng s ha d vi ol at ed Mo or e’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht to be f r e e f ro m

ex ces si ve fo rce an d ret ur ne d a ve rd ic t in fav or of Perk in s. Afte r fin al jud gm en t was

en te red , Perk in s ap pe al ed , cha ll en gi ng th e su m m ary jud gm en t o rd er. W e aff irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

Has ti ng s ap pl ie d fo r a po si ti on wit h th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t in May

20 06

. Befo re be in g hi red

, Has ti ng s su bm it te d to a p o l yg rap h ex am in at io n, du rin g

whi ch he ad m it te d th at he ha d at te nd ed a Ku Klu x Klan m eet in g whe n he was a jun io r

in hi gh sc ho ol

. In a st at em en t, Has ti ng s ex pl ai ne d th at he sn uc k in to th e m eet in g wit h

two fri en ds to “ se e wha t [h is fri en d’s] gra nd pa do es .”

A hi rin g co m

m it te e ap pr ov ed Has ti ng s fo r hi re by a vo te of th ree- to -o ne

. The

co m m it te e was co m

po se d of Ch ie f Tho m as

, a whi te m al e who ha d se rv ed twen ty-ni ne

y ears wit h th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t, an d th ree ot he r hi gh -ran ki ng of fic ers

,

al l o f who m ha d se rv ed m or e th an twen ty y ears on th e p ol ic e fo rce. Th e li eu te na nt

who cas t th e ne ga ti v e vo te st at ed th at Has ti ng s’s at te nd an ce at a Ku Klu x Klan

m eet in g di sq ua li fie d hi m fro m se rv in g wit h th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t. In a

m em o to hi s cap ta in

, th e li eu te na nt wro te th at he ha d “ se rio us res erv at io ns reg ard in g

[Has ti ng s’s] jud gm en t an d m a tur ity ” an d tha t H as ti ng s was “ an un fav or ab le can di da te

an d a po te nt ia l l ia bi li ty for t he Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t.”

Has ti ng s was hi red in Mar ch 20 07 an d at te n d e d twen ty week s of po li ce

tra in in g. Afte r gr ad ua ti on

, Has ti ng s un de rwen t twel ve week s of fie ld tra in in g, du rin g

1 The Hon or ab le Bri an S. Mi ll er, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r

th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-whi ch he ro de a l o ng wit h m or e ex pe rie nc ed of fic ers

. Has ti ng s th erea fte r rece iv ed

fo rty ho ur s o f tr ai ni ng pe r y ear, i nc lu di ng refre sh er co ur se s o n t he us e o f fo rce.

Has ti ng s was th e su bjec t of m ul ti pl e di sc ip li na ry act io ns ov er th e co ur se of hi s

fiv e-year care er wit h th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep a r t men t

. He rep eat ed ly fai le d to

act iv at e hi s m ot or ve hi cl e reco rd in g de vi ce; fai le d to pr o p e r l y s t o r e pr op ert y or

pr op erl y co m

pl et e pa pe rwo rk ; fai le d to pr op erl y in ve st ig at e; fai le d to ho no r

su bp oe na s; fai le d to no ti fy su pe rv is or s; an d fai le d to fo ll ow or de rs or le ft hi s di st ric t

wit ho ut pe rm is si o n

. Has ti ng s al so us ed in ap pr op ria te la ng ua ge or en ga ge d in

un be co m in g co nd uc t; e n g a ge d in im pr op er dr iv in g or da m ag ed de pa rtment

eq ui pm en t; sl ep t on du ty; an d was un tru th fu l. Has ti ng s ’s d i s c i p li ne fo r th es e

vi ol at io ns ran ge d fro m co un se li ng an d rep rimand s to su sp en si on s fro m on e to fif te en

da y s.

The Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m e n t mai n t ai ns an Earl y In te rv en ti on Sy st em

(EIS) th at m on it or s of

fic ers to id en ti fy pa tt ern s of m is co nd uc t. Su pe rv is or s ha ve

acce ss to th e syste m

, an d th e of fic e of pr of

es si on al st an da rd s rece iv es an al ert

whe ne ve r an of

fic er m eet s “ an es ta bl is he d th res ho ld [o f in ci de nt s]

. . . pe rta in in g to

u s e o f fo rce, on -d ut y m ot or ve hi cl e acci de nt s, po li ce pu rs ui ts an d co m pl ai n t s

in vo lv in g m is co nd uc t and in ad eq ua te ser vi ce.” Unt il th e so ftwa re was up gr ad ed in

20 12

, th e syste m di d no t di st in gu is h be twee n of fic ers who ha d us ed fo rce du rin g an

in ci de nt an d t ho se off

ic ers who ha d n ot us ed for ce b ut were o th erwi se in vo lv ed

.

Has ti ng s tri gg er e d t hr ee EIS al ert s du rin g hi s care er. In Apr il 20 09

, th e EIS

syste m id en ti fie d Has ti ng s as ha vi ng be en in vo lv ed in s i x u s e

- of -fo rce in ci de nt s

du rin g th e pr eced in g y ear. The de pa rtment ha d pr ev io us ly in ve st ig at ed th e in ci de nt s

an d ex on erat ed Has ti ng s of an y wro ng do in g. Acco rd in g to th e fact s ga th ered by th e

in te rn al affa irs di vi si on an d se t f o r t h in th e EIS rep or t, th ree in ci de nt s in vo lv ed

su sp ect s at te m

pt in g to pu nc h Has ti ng s, to whi ch Has ti ng s res po nd ed wit h a “ br ach ia l

st un ,” a pu nc h, an d “ se ve ral st rai gh t pu nc he s,” res pe ct iv el y

. The rem ai ni ng in ci de nt s

-3

-in vo lv ed fo rce rel at ed to ta ki ng do wn no nc om pl ia nt or fle ei ng su sp ect s. Has ti ng s’s

im m ed ia te su pe rv is or rev ie wed th e EI S r e po rt an d co nc lu de d th at Has ti ng s ha d

em pl oyed “ th e m in im

um us e of fo rce ne ces sa ry to carr y ou t hi s ass ig ne d du ti es as a

pa tro lm an .” The se rg ean t de te rm in ed th at th e rep or t was a “ fal se al arm ” an d

reco m m en de d no di sc ip li na ry act io n. Two li eu te na nt s, a cap ta in

, an d Ch ie f Tho m as

al l co nc ur red in th e se rg ean t’s re co m m en da ti on

.

The ne xt EIS al ert oc cu rred in Feb ru ary 20 10

, aft er Hasti ng s was in vo lv ed in

te n us e-o f-fo rce in ci de nt s in th e pr e c ed in g y ear. The de pa rtment pr ev io us ly ha d

in ve st ig at ed th os e in ci de nt s an d ex on erat ed Has ti ng s of an y wro ng do in g. Acco rd in g

to th e EIS rep or t

, H a s t i n g s us ed fo rce whe n co nf ro nt ed wit h su sp ect s who were

no nc om pl ia nt

, fle ei ng

, res is ti ng arre st

, or a t t e m pt in g to pu nc h or ki ck th e of fic ers

.

Has ti ng s us ed fo rce si m il ar to th at whi ch was rep or te d in th e Apr il 20 09 EIS rep or t,

in cl ud in g ta ke do wns an d pu nc he s. He al so us ed a “ st rai gh t arm ba r,” a “ sh ou ld er pi n

m an eu ve r,” “ st rai gh t ar m st rik es ,” an d b at on st rik es

.

Afte r rev ie win g th e fil e, hi s s e r g e an t wro te th at Has ti ng s’s us e-o f-fo rce

in ci de nt s were “ no t th at hi gh ,” in li gh t of hi s “ pa tro l area co ns is t[i ng ] of th e hi gh es t

vi ol en t cri m e area an d

. . . th e he av ie st cal l-l oa d.” Sh e di d no t reco m m en d di sc ip li ne

bu t in di cat ed th at sh e wou ld m on it or Has ti ng s’s pe rfo rm an ce. The li eu te na nt ag reed

,

an d th e cap ta in ad vi se d th at he h a d a s k e d Has ti ng s’s su pe rv is or s to wor k wit h

Has ti ng s “ ve ry cl os e[l y ] to en su re he is pr of es si on al an d wo r k s t o a v o i d us es of

fo rce.” The as si st an t ch ie f of po li ce reco m m en de d ad di ti on al m on it or in g an d

su pe rv is io n, h owe ve r, in li gh t of th e nu m be r of in ci de nt s in vo lv in g th e us e of f or ce

an d ve hi cl e pu rs u i t s

, a s well as an on -d ut y m ot or ve hi cl e acci de nt an d ot he r

di sc ip li na ry is su es

. Bas ed on th e as si st an t ch ie f’s reco m m en da ti on s, Ch ie f Tho m as

or de red Has ti ng s to ha ve bi -week ly co un se li ng se ss io ns an d r e q ui red bi -week ly

pr og res s re po rts for si x m on th s.

-4

-W

hil e the inv es tig at i on in to th e se co nd EIS al ert was pe nd in g, Ced ric McS wain

fil e d a ci ti zen co m

pl ai nt ag ai ns t Has ti ng s. McS wain rep or te d th at he was st an di ng

in an al le y on Mar ch 15

, 20 10

, whe n he sa w of fic ers ap pr oa ch in g. McS wain rep or te d

th at he of fere d hi s id en ti fic at io n, pu t hi s arm s in th e ai r, an d to ld th e of fic ers hi s na m e

an d ad dr es s. Acco rd in g to McS wain

, of fic er s g r a b b ed hi m by th e arm s an d le gs

,

th rew hi m to th e gr ou nd

, pu t a fo ot on hi s ba ck

, an d pu nc h e d hi m in th e ey e. The

po li ce rep or t in di cat ed th at McS wain was in to xi cat ed

, be ll ig eren t, an d res is te d arre st

.

The rep or t fu rth er in di cat ed th at be cau se th e of fic ers be l i ev ed McS wain to be a

su sp ect who ha d fle d on fo ot

, th ey to ok hi m to th e gr ou nd

. Acco rd in g to th e of fic ers

in vo lv ed in th e in ci de nt

, Has ti ng s he ld McS wain ’s le ft arm du rin g th e ta ke do wn an d

th erea fte r ha nd cu f

f e d h i m. Has ti ng s di d no t su bm it an y do cu m en ta ti on ab ou t th e

in ci de nt or h is us e o f fo rce.

Fo ll owi ng an in te rn al affa irs in ve st ig at io n, Ch ie f Tho m as fo un d th at Has ti ng s

ha d vi ol at ed t h e de pa rtment’s ge ne ral or de rs req ui rin g po li ce-i nc id en t rep or ts an d

us e-o f-fo rce rep or ts

. Has ti ng s was ex on erat ed fro m th e al le ga ti on s th at he ha d us ed

ex ces si ve fo rce an d fai le d to pr op erl y op erat e hi s m ot or ve hi cl e reco rd in g de vi ce. An

al le ga ti on of un tru th fu ln es s was de em ed “ no t su st ai ne d.” Ch ie f Tho m as or de red

co un se li ng an d rem ed ia l tra in in g on do cu m en ti ng th e us e of fo rce. M cSwai n la te r

fil ed a la wsu it ag ai ns t Has ti ng s, Ch ie f Tho m as

, an d ot he r of fic ers

. The la wsu it was

di sm is se d aft er McS wain fai le d to res po nd to th e m eri ts of th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t

. S e e McS wain v. Has ti ng s

, No. 4: 13 -cv -1 22 -DPM, 20 15 W L

73 12 86 (E.D. Ark. Feb . 17 , 20 15 )

.

Has ti ng s tri gg ered a th ird EIS a l e r t in Apr il 20 10 aft er be in g in vo lv ed in si x

us e-o f-fo rce in ci de nt s be twee n Ja nu a r y 2 4

, 20 10

, an d Apr il 18

, 20 10

. The

de pa rtment in ve st ig at ed th os e in ci de nt s an d ex on erat ed Has ti ng s. Lik e th e pr ev io us

rep or ts

, th is rep or t in di cat ed th a t H a s t i n gs ha d us ed fo rce ag ai ns t in di vi du al s who

were no nc om

pl ia nt

, fle ei ng

, act iv el y res is ti ng arre st

, or at te m pt in g to pu nc h or ki ck

of fic ers

. Has ti ng s’s us e of fo rce in cl ud ed ta ke do wns

, th e us e of pe pp er sp ray, an d th e

-5

-us e of “ hi s bo dyw e i g h t t o m ai nt ai n co nt ro l” of a su sp ect

. Has ti ng s was or de red to

co nt in ue wit h h is bi -week ly cou ns el in g.

Has ti ng s d id no t tri gg er an y fur th er EIS re po rts du rin g h is ti m e o n t he po li ce

fo rce, no r were an y fu rth er ci ti zen co m pl ai nt s or la wsu it s fil ed ag a i n s t hi m

.

Acco rd in g to hi s co nc is e of fic er hi st or y rep or t, Has ti ng s was in v o l v e d i n a to ta l of

fo rty-on e in ci de nt s in vo lv in g th e us e of fo rce. His on ly u se of de a d l y f o r c e du rin g

hi s fi ve -y ear c aree r oc cu rred when he sh ot Mo or e.

C h i ef Tho m as au th or iz ed an in ve st ig at io n on Ju ne 27 , 2 01 2, in to al le ga ti o n s

th at Has ti ng s ha d b een un tru th fu l an d was gu il ty o f de rel ic ti on of du ty. Acco rd in g

to th e in te rn al affa irs rep or t, Has ti ng s ha d be en di sp at ch ed to a st or e at 4: 13 a.m

. on

Ju ne 25

, 20 12

, aft er an al arm co m pa ny cal le d an d rep or te d gl as s br eak ag e. The al arm

co m pa ny cal le d ag ai n at 4: 37 a.m

. to rep or t an a l a r m i nd ic at in g th at th e fro nt do or

was op en ed

, at whi ch ti m e Has ti ng s rep or te d to di sp at ch th at he ha d sh ak en th e fro nt

do or

. Has ti ng s’s in ci de nt rep or t st at ed th at th e of fen se was a fal se al arm an d th at al l

do or s an d wi nd ows were l oc ke d a nd sec ur ed

.

The in ci de nt was reco rd ed on th e st or e’s s e c u rit y cam era an d di rect ly

co nt rad ic te d Has ti ng s’s ve rs io n of th e in ci de nt

. The reco rd in g sh owe d a ro ck be in g

th ro wn th ro ug h a win do w in th e fro nt do or

. A su sp ect ha d en te red th e bu si ne ss an d

la te r ex it ed wit h a la rg e wh i t e b a g co nt ai ni ng th e lo ot

. A po li ce car th en dr ov e by

wit ho ut st op pi ng

, an d th e st or e m an ag er la te r can be se en en te rin g an d e x i t i n g th e

st or e, pr es um ab ly whi le wait in g fo r th e of fic ers

. The m an ag er cal le d di sp at ch at 4: 46

a.m

. to rep or t th at no of fic ers ha d res po nd ed to th e cal ls

. Dur in g a n i n te rv ie w,

Has ti ng s sa id th at he ex it ed hi s car, walk ed up to th e do or s, an d pu ll ed th em to m ak e

su re th at th ey were se cu re. Acco rd in g to th e in ve st ig at io n rep or t, th e vi de o ev id en ce

“cl e a rly di sp la y [ed ] th e fro nt do or s of th e bu si ne ss an d ne ve r sh owe d Offi cer

Has ti ng s ap pr oa ch th e do or s.” Ch ie f Tho m as de te rm in ed th at Has ti ng s ha d ne gl ect ed

hi s du ty an d be en un tru th fu l, in vi ol at io n of th e ru le s an d reg u l a t i o ns of th e po li ce

-6

-d e pa rtment. Has ti ng s rem ai ne d on du ty du rin g th e in ve st ig at io n in to th e st or e

in ci de nt

.

W e tu rn

, th en

, to th e in ci de nt th at ga ve ris e to th e pr es en t act io n. In th e earl y

m or ni ng ho ur s of Aug us t 12

, 20 12

, Has ti ng s res po nd ed to a rep or t of su sp ic io us

act iv i t y n e a r a n ap art m en t bu il di ng

. Acco rd in g to th e cal le r, two in di vi du al s were

walk in g th ro ug h th e pa rk in g lo t an d lo ok in g in to ve hi cl es wit h fla sh li gh ts

. Has ti ng s

arri ve d on th e sc en e an d ad vi se d ov er th e rad io th at he ha d he ard gl as s br eak in g an d

h a d ob se rv ed th ree bl ack m al es

. The th ree su sp ect s so on en te red a ve h i c l e

, a n d

Mo or e dr ov e th e ve hi cl e fo rward to ward H a s t i n g s

. W he n Has ti ng s st ep pe d ou t in

fro nt of th e car, Mo or e ei th er s to pp ed th e car or p la ced it in rev ers e. Has ti ng s fire d

two ro un ds in to th e dr iv er’s si de co m pa rtment, ki ll in g Mo or e. Hom ic id e de te ct iv es

an d m em be rs of th e Cri m e Scen e Sear ch Uni t were cal le d to th e sc en e, an d th e Lit tl e

Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t b eg an it s cr im in al in ve st ig at io n.

Sev eral ho ur s afte r th e sh oo ti ng an d i n t he pre se nc e o f hi s at to rn ey

, Has ti ng s

was ad vi se d of h i s M i ran da rig ht s an d in te rv ie wed by la w en fo rcem en t of fic ia ls

.

Has ti ng s st at ed th at he was po si ti on ed ne ar th e to p of a hi ll whe n he ob se rv ed two

bl ack m al es i n a v e h ic le an d on e bl ack m al e st an di ng ne arb y ho ld in g a fla sh li gh t.

Has ti ng s rep os it io ne d hi m se lf an d th en ob se rv ed th e th ree su sp ect s en te r a di ffer en t

ve hi cl e. Has ti ng s st at ed th at whe n th e ve hi cl e dr ov e fo rward

, he st ep pe d ou t in fro nt

o f i t

, t u rn ed on hi s fla sh li gh t, an d y el le d, “ Po li ce, st op th e car! ” Acco rd in g t o

Has ti ng s, th e dr iv er di d no t sl ow do wn an d in st ea d dr ov e “ st rai gh t at [h im ]. ”

Has ti ng s st at ed th at he ba ck pe da le d an d real iz ed th at he h a d n o pl ace to go

, wit h

ro ck s be hi nd hi m an d a wall ne xt to hi m

. Has ti ng s cl ai m ed th at he th en sh ot in to th e

ve hi cl e to pre ve nt th e d riv er fro m run ni ng hi m

ov er.

Has ti ng s s ta te d t ha t af

te r he fir ed th e two sh ot s, the ve hi cl e pa ss ed by hi m so

cl os el y

, he co ul d hav e to uc he d it

. Acco rd in g to Hast in gs , th e v eh ic le “ cras he d i nt o

th e ro ck s” as it pr oc eed e d f o r w ard

, tra ve le d jus t ov er an em ba nk m en t, st op pe d

-7

-m om en ta ril y

, an d th en ro ll ed ba ck ward s un ti l it s rear en d st ru ck a p a r k e d c ar. The

two pa ss en ge rs fle d fro m th e sc en e. Has ti ng s m ai nt ai ne d th at he di d no t sh oo t at th e

ve hi cl e whi le it was t rav el in g i n re ve rs e.

Po li ce of fic ers lo cat e d t h e two te en ag e bo y s who ha d be en wit h Mo or e th at

Aug us t m o rn in g. One of th e bo y s ex pl ai ne d th at as th e ve hi cl e ap pr oa ch ed th e

du m ps te r, he sa w a li gh t an d to ld Mo or e to st op

, whi ch h e d i d

. T he te en ag er

reco un te d th at Mo or e pu t th e ge ar in rev ers e an d st art ed ba ck in g do wn th e hi ll

. The

of fic er th en op en ed fir e. The ot he r bo y sa id th at th e y w ere un aware th at a po li ce

of fic er was pr es en t un ti l th e of fic er st ep pe d in fro nt of th e car. He sa id th at Mo or e

was st op pi ng th e car w h e n th e of fic er fir ed sh ot s, whe reu po n th e ve hi cl e tra ve le d

ba ck ward s.

Has t i n gs ’s ve rs io n of th e in ci de nt was in co ns is te nt wit h th e pa ss en ge rs ’

acco un ts an d th e ev id en ce ga th ered at th e cri m e sc en e. The ro ck y em ba nk m en t th at

Has ti ng s cl ai m ed th e ve hi c l e tra ve le d ov er was un di st ur be d. The ve hi cl e’s

un de rcar ria ge was n ot da m ag ed , a nd it s ge ar sh ift was in ne ut ral

. A r eco ns tru ct io n

of th e ev en t de te rm in ed th at th e vi ct im ’s ve hi cl e was tra ve li ng “i n rev ers e un de r

po wer” be fo re it hi t th e pa rk ed car. Ch ie f Th o m as ul ti m at el y co nc lu de d th at th e

ve hi cl e ha d st op pe d se ve ral feet fro m Has ti ng s an d th at th e dr iv er was in th e pr oc es s

of rev ers in g wh en Hast in gs di sc ha rg ed hi s wea po n.

In Sep te m

be r 20 12

, a st at e di st ric t jud ge is su ed a warra nt fo r Has ti ng s’s arre st

on a ch arg e of m an sl a ug ht er in vi ol at io n of Ark an sa s Co de § 5- 10 -1 04

. The

su pp or ti ng affi da vi t st at ed th at “ [w]hil e it ap pe ars th at th e ve hi cl e was dr iv in g to ward

Has ti ng s at s o me po in t, al l of th e ph y si cal ev id en ce is co ns is te nt wit h st at em en ts

m ad e by t he oc cu pa nt s of th e car, in di cat in g th a t t h e c a r was st op pe d, or in rev ers e

at th e ti m e Has ti ng s fir ed

, an d no t tra ve li ng to wa r d h i m a t a hi gh rat e of sp eed

, as

Has ti ng s i nd ic at ed in hi s s ta te m en t.”

-8

-Fo ll owi ng th e in te rn al affa irs in ve st ig at io n, Ch ie f Tho m as te rm ina te d H as ti ng s

fo r vi ol at in g th e ge ne ral or de rs an d th e ru le s an d reg ul at io ns of th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce

Dep art m en t. Th e t e r mi n at io n was ba se d on Has ti ng s’s sh oo ti ng of Mo or e an d hi s

de rel ic ti on of du ty an d un tru th fu ln es s rega rd in g th e st or e b reak -in . W it h res pe ct to

th e sh oo ti ng , Hast in gs ha d vi ol at ed Gen eral Ord er 30 3, Sect io n II.D., wh ic h st at es

,

“ Offi cers m ay on ly us e Dead ly Fo rce to pr ot ect th em se lv es or ot he rs fro m wha t th ey

reas on ab ly be li ev e to be an im m ed ia te th r e a t of de at h or se rio us in jury.” Has ti ng s

ha d a ls o v io la te d Gen eral Orde r 30 3, Se ct io n II .E.1-2 , whi ch pro vi de s:

Dis ch arg in g fir earm s at a m ov in g or fle ei ng ve hi cl e is pr oh ib it ed

, un le ss

it is ne ces sa ry to p r e v e n t im m in en t de at h or se rio us ph y si cal in jury to

th e o ffi cer o r an ot he r pe rs on

.

Offi cers wil l no t vo lu nt ari ly pl ace th em se lv es in a po si ti on in fro nt of an

on co m in g ve hi cl e whe re Dead ly Fo rce is th e pr ob ab le ou tc om e. W he n

co nf ro nt ed by an on co m in g ve hi cl e, of fic ers wil l m o ve ou t of it s pa th

, if p os si bl e, rat he r th an fir e at th e v eh ic le

.

Fo ll owi ng th e cri m in al an d i n te rn al in ve st ig at io ns

, a Dead ly Fo rce Rev ie w

Bo ard was co nv en ed to ev al ua te bo th in ve st ig at io ns

. The Bo ard de te rm in ed th at th e

in ci de nt was av oi da bl e an d th at Has ti ng s “ di d no t ad he re to hi s tra in in g whe n he

ex it ed hi s po si ti on of co ve r an d co n c eal m en t an d pl aced hi m se lf in th e pa th of th e

m ov in g v eh ic le .”

Perk in s fil ed th is act io n ag ai ns t Has ti ng s, Ch ie f Tho m as

, an d th e Ci ty of Lit tl e

Ro ck in Ju ne 20 15

. As rel ev an t to th is ap pe al

, sh e al le ge d th at th e Ci ty “ m ai nt ai ne d

a wid es pr ead cu st om of ex ces si ve fo rce an d un tru th fu ln es s

, ” t ha t Tho m as an d th e

Ci ty fai le d t o t r a i n or su pe rv is e po li ce of fic ers

, an d th at Tho m as was in di vi du al ly

li ab le for hi rin g a nd ret ai ni ng Hast in gs

.

-9

-In op po si ti on to de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t, Perk in s su bm it te d

an affi da vi t an d a rep or t by Ro ge r Cl ark

, an ex pe rt in po li ce pr oc ed ur es

, who op in ed

t h a t th e Ci ty fai le d to in ve st ig at e or di sc ip li ne it s of fic ers

. Cl ark co m

p a r e d t h e

nu m be r of in ci de nt s of fo rce su st ai ne d as ex ces si ve (3 3) to th e to ta l nu m be r of us e-o ff o r c e i n c i d en ts th at ge ne rat ed in te rn al affa irs rep or ts (5 77 ) by Lit tl e Ro ck po li ce

of fi c ers fro m 19 85 to 20 16

. Cl ark fo un d th at th e pe rcen ta ge of in ci de nt s de em ed

ex ces si ve (6 pe rcen t) was “ in or di na te ly lo w” an d was “ a pe r se in di cat or of a pa tt ern

an d pr act ic e by th e Lit tl e Ro ck Po li ce Dep art m en t to ig no r e cl ear in di cat or s of

ex ces si ve fo rce by of

fic ers .” Acco rd in g to Cl ark

, th e nu m be rs in di cat ed th at th e Ci ty

al lo wed of

fic ers “ to rep eat ed ly in fli ct ex ces si ve fo rce an d ig no re th e writ te n po li ci es

an d pr oc ed ur es of th e Li t t l e R o ck Po li ce Dep art m en t.” Cl ark di d no t rev ie w th e

in di vi du al in ci de nt s in vo lv in g th e us e of fo rce an d di d no t id en ti fy in ci de nt s in whi ch

a fin di ng of ex ces si ve fo rce sh ou ld ha ve be en su st ai ne d bu t was no t. W he n as ke d to

id en ti fy an in st an ce i n w h ic h ex ces si ve de ad ly fo rce was us ed be twee n 20 04 an d

20 11 , Cla rk rep li ed

, “ I di d n ot rev ie w th e u se s o f de ad ly force cas e b y cas e.”

Si m il arl y

, Cl ark di d no t ex am in e each in ci de nt in whi ch Has ti ng s ha d ap pl ie d

fo rce, c o n cl ud in g in st ead th at Has ti ng s m us t ha ve us ed ex ces si ve fo rce be cau se he

ha d be en in vo lv ed in fo rty i nc id en ts in vo lv in g th e us e of for ce du rin g hi s fiv e-year

care er. Late r in hi s de po si ti on

, Cl ark id en ti fie d th ree in ci de nt s in whi ch he be li ev ed

Has ti ng s ha d us ed ex ces si ve fo rce. Wh e n a sk ed whi ch in ci de nt s in di cat ed th at

Has ti ng s wou ld us e de ad ly fo rce ag ai ns t Mo or e, Cl ark rep li ed

, “ [W] he n y ou ha ve an

of fic er th at ’s no n- co m

pl ia nt in an y area

, it ’s refl ect iv e of be in g no n- co m pl ia nt in th e

cri ti cal area

. . . [ , a nd ] s o o n e r o r la te r, th ei r de pa rtu re fro m th e st an da rd wil l res ul t

in a cat as tro ph ic ou tc om e.”

As reco un te d ab ov e, th e d is tri ct co ur t g ran te d s um m ary jud gm en t t o Tho m as

an d th e Ci ty. On th e cl ai m al le gi ng a m un ic ip al cu st om of pe rm it ti ng or en co ur ag in g

ex ces si ve fo rce, th e co ur t de te rm in ed th at Perk in s ha d no t es ta bl is he d an un de rlyin g

pa tt ern of ex ces si ve fo rce an d th at “ a pa tt ern of un tru th fu ln es s, ev en if pr ov en

, is no t

-1 0-si m il ar en ou gh to be th e pr ox im at e cau se of an of fic er’s us e of ex ces si ve fo rce.” D.

Ct

. Ord er of Ja n. 27

, 20 17

, at 14

. W it h res pe ct to Perk in s’s cl ai m al le gi ng fai lu re to

t r a i n o r s up erv is e th e Ci ty’ s po li ce of fic ers

, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at “ t h e

un di sp ut ed fact s do no t de m on st rat e th at ei th er Tho m as or th e ci ty of Lit tl e Ro ck was

aware of an d del ib erat el y in di ffer en t to a pa tt ern of un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t by the

LRPD th at was si m il ar to th e sh oo ti ng of Bo bb y Mo or e.” Id

. at 4. The di st ric t co ur t

al so co nc lu de d th at “ th e si ng le act of hi rin g Has ti ng s di d no t pr o x i mat e l y cau se a

vi ol at io n o f Bo bb y

Mo or e’s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s.” Id

. at 1 5.

Perk in s mo v e d fo r reco ns id erat io n, arg ui ng th at th e co ur t ha d co m m it te d

“ se rio us m is ap pl ic at io ns of th e la w” an d ha d “ arb it rar[ il ]y pa rs [ed ]” th e ev id en ce. D.

Ct

. Ord er of Mar

. 24

, 20 17

, at 1. P e r k i n s a l s o c l ai m ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha d

di sr eg ard ed Cl ark ’s ex pe rt op in io n. The di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, rei te rat in g

th at Perk in s h ad fai le d t o es ta bl is h a pa tt ern of pri or si m il ar m is co nd uc t. The co ur t

fu rth er e x pl ai ne d th at Cl ark ’s st at is ti cal an al y si s al on e co ul d no t su bs ta nt ia te hi s

op in io n th at th e Ci ty m ai nt ai ne d a cu st om of al lo win g of fic ers to us e ex ces si ve fo rce.

II. Dis cu ss io n

W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g th e

ev id e n ce in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g pa rty an d dr awin g al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es in th at pa rty’ s fav or

. And rews v. Fo wler

, 98 F.3 d 10 69

, 10 74

(8 th Ci r. 19 96 )

. Su m

m ary jud gm en t is ap pr op ria te if th e m ov in g pa r t y s h o ws th at

th ere is no ge nu in e di sp ut e as to an y m at eri al fact an d th e m ov in g pa rty is en ti tl ed to

jud gm en t as a m at te r of la w. Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (a)

. “Su mm a r y ju dg m en t is al so

ap pr op ria te whe n th e pl ai nt iff ha s fai le d to m ak e a su ffi ci en t sh owi ng of th e ex is te nc e

of an ess en ti al ele m en t o f he r cas e.” And rews , 98 F.3d at 1 07 4

.

-1 1-A. Mun ic ip al Liab il it y

A mu n i c ip al it y m ay be he ld li ab le un de r § 19 83 if it

, “ un de r co lo r of an y

st at ut e, or di na nc e, reg ul at io n, cu st om

, or us ag e, of an y St at e

. . . , su bjec ts

, or cau se s

to be su bjec te d, any ci ti zen of th e Uni te d Stat es

. . . to th e de pr iv at io n of any rig ht s,

pr iv il eg es

, or im m

un it ie s se cu red by th e Co ns ti tu ti on an d la ws.” 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 ;

se e Mo ne ll v. Dep ’t of So c. Serv s.

, 43 6 U.S. 65 8, 69 0- 91 (1 97 8)

. Mu ni ci pa l li ab il it y

ex is ts “ on ly wh ere th e m

un ic ip al it y it

se lf cau se s t he co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Ci ty

of Can to n v. Harri s

, 48 9 U.S. 37 8, 38 5 (1 9 8 9 )

. A pl ai nt iff th us m us t “ id en ti fy a

m un ic ip al ‘pol ic y ’ or ‘cus to m ’ th at cau se d th e pl ai nt iff ’s in jury.” Bd

. of Ct y

.

Co m m ’rs v. Br own , 52 0 U.S. 3 97 , 40 3 (1 99 7)

.

“ [A ] n ac t pe r fo rm ed pu rs ua nt to a ‘cus to m ’ th at ha s no t be en fo rm al ly ap pr ov ed

by an ap pr op ria te de ci si on m ak er m ay fai rly su bjec t a m un ic ip al it y to li ab il it y on th e

th eo ry th at th e rel ev an t pr act ic e is so wid es pr ead as to ha ve th e fo rce of la w.” Id

. at

40 4

. The pl a i nt iff al so m us t sh ow a di rect cau sa l li nk be twee n th e cu st om an d th e

de pr iv at io n of rig ht s, i.e. , t ha t “ th e m un ic i p a l i t y was th e ‘m ov in g fo rce’ be hi nd th e

in jury al le ge d.” Id

. (q uo ti ng Mo ne ll

, 43 6 U.S. at 69 4 ). “ W he re a pl ai nt iff cl ai m s th at

th e m un ic ip al it y ha s no t di rect ly in fli ct ed an in jury, bu t no ne th el es s ha s cau se d an

em pl oyee to do so , r ig or ou s st an da rd s of cu lp ab il it y a n d cau sa ti on m us t be ap pl ie d

to en su re th a t t h e m

un ic ip al it y is no t he ld li ab le so le ly fo r th e act io ns of it s

em pl oyee.” Id

. at 4 05

.

Perk in s fir st co nt en ds th at th e vi ol at io n of he r so n’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s

was cau se d by th e Ci ty’ s fai lu re to ad eq ua te ly in ve st ig at e po li ce m is co n d u ct

. To

es ta bl is h a m

un ic ip al cu st om ba se d on a fai lu re to pr ev en t po li ce m is co nd uc t, a

pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow th at th e m

un ic ip al it y act ed wit h de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to th e

rig ht s of pe rs on s wit h who m th e of fic ers co m e in to c o n t a ct

. See Harri s v. Ci ty of

Pag ed al e

, 82 1 F.2 d 49 9, 50 4 (8 th Ci r. 19 87 ) (ap pl y in g a de li be rat e in di ffer en ce

st an da rd to a cl ai m of “ a m un ic ip al cu st om of fai li ng to rece iv e, in ve st ig at e or act on

-1 2-ci ti zen co m

pl ai nt s of ph y si ca l a n d s ex ua l m is co nd uc t by po li ce of fic ers ” ). To

es ta bl is h de li be rat e in di ffer en ce, a pl a i n t i f f o r di na ril y m

us t sh ow a pa tt ern of

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

. 2 See Bro wn

, 52 0 U.S. at 40 9 (ex pl ai ni ng th at a “ pa tt ern of

in juri es [is ] or di na ril y

ne ces sa ry

to es ta bl is h m

un ic ip al cu lp ab il it y an d cau sa ti on ” );

Parr is h v . Luck ie , 96 3 F .2d 20 1, 20 4 (8t h Cir. 19 92 ) ( “ To est ab li sh a cit y ’s li ab il it y

ba se d on it s fai lu re to pr ev en t m is co nd uc t by em pl oyees, th e pl ai nt iff m

us t sh ow th at

ci ty of fic ia ls ha d kn owl ed ge of pr io r in ci de nt s of po li ce m is co nd uc t an d de li be rat el y

fai le d to ta k e r e med ia l act io n.” ); Harri s

, 82 1 F.2 d at 50 4 ( “ The cl ai m an t m us t

de m on st rat e ‘del ib erat e in di ffer en ce or ta ci t au th or iz at io n [b y m un ic ip al of

fic ia ls ] of

th e of fen si ve act s by [fai lu re] to ta ke rem ed ia l st ep s fo ll owi ng no ti ce of a pa tt ern of

su ch act s by .

. . s u b o r d in at es .’ ” (al te rat io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng W il so n v. Ci ty o f

N. Lit tl e Ro ck

, 80 1 F.2 d 31 6, 32 2 (8 th Ci r. 1 9 8 6 ) )). The di st ric t co ur t de te rm in ed

t h a t P e rk in s’s fai lu re to sh ow a pa tt ern of co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns fo recl os ed he r

in ad eq ua te -in ve st ig at io n c la im

.

The di st ric t co ur t di d no t err whe n it req ui red Perk in s to es ta bl is h a pa tt ern of

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns to pr ov e he r cl ai m

. See Met tl er v

. W hi tl ed ge

, 16 5 F.3 d

11 97

, 12 05 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 ) ( “ Evi de nc e th at a po li ce d e p a r t me nt ha s fai le d to

in ve st ig at e pr ev io us in ci de nt s si m il ar to th e in ci de nt in qu es ti on may su pp or t a

fin di ng th at a m

un ic ip al cu st om ex is ts

, an d th at su ch a cu st om en co ur ag es or al lo ws

of fic ers to us e ex ces si ve fo rce wit ho ut co nc ern fo r pu ni sh m en t.” ); Ro ge rs v. Ci ty of

Lit tl e Ro ck

, 15 2 F.3 d 79 0, 79 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) ( “ In or de r to su bjec t th e ci ty to § 19 83

l i a b i l i ty Ro ge rs m

us t sh ow th at th e ci ty ha d a ‘“ po li cy or cu st om ” of fai li ng to a c t

up on pr io r si m il ar co m pl ai nt s of un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t, whi ch ca u s e d t h e

2 Perk in s ha s no t arg ue d th at th is cas e is on e whe re Has ti ng s’s us e of ex ces si ve

fo rce was “ th e pl ai nl y ob vi ou s co ns eq ue nc e” of th e Ci ty’ s al le ge d fai l u r e to

in ve st ig at e p ol ic e m is co nd uc t. See Bro wn , 52 0 U.S. at 40 9

.

-1 3-co ns ti tu ti on al in jury at is su e.’” (q uo ti ng And rews

, 98 F.3 d at 10 75 )). 3 Nor di d th e

di st ric t co ur t m is in te rp ret Bec k v. Ci ty of Pi tt sb ur gh

, 89 F.3 d 96 6 (3 d Ci r. 19 96 )

, in

whi ch th e co ur t he ld th at th e pl ai nt iff ha d pr es en te d s u f f i c ie nt ev id en ce to al lo w a

jury to co nc lu de th at th e m un ic ip al it y pe rm it te d or en co ur ag ed a pa tt ern of ex ces si ve

fo rce th ro ug h it s in ad eq ua te in ve st ig at io ns of ci vi li an co m pl ai nt s. Alt ho ug h Perk in s

m ai nt ai ns th at th e Ci ty’ s in ve st ig at io ns in to m is co nd uc t wer e “ no th in g m or e th an a

faca de

, de si gn ed to ex on erat e of fic ers ,” App el la nt ’s Br. 16

, sh e ha s no t ad dr es se d th e

su bs ta nc e of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to gr an t su m m ary jud gm en t to th e Ci ty—th at

sh e ha d no t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow a pa tt ern o f c o n s t i tu ti on al

vi ol at io ns

.

At su m m ary jud gm en t, Perk in s arg ue d th at th e ev id en ce es ta bl is he d a “ pa tt ern

of sh oo ti ng at m ov in g cars th at do no t po se an ob j e c t i v e l y r eas on ab le fear of

im m in e n t d e at h or gr eat bo di ly h arm .” Sh e pr es en te d so m e ev id en ce reg ard in g si x

in ci de nt s in whi ch of

fic ers ha d us ed de ad ly fo rce ag ai n st in di vi du al s dr iv in g ve hi cl es

.

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at on ly on e of th e sh oo ti ng s was arg ua bl y un jus ti fie d

an d th at th e rem a i n in g in ci de nt s in vo lv ed dr iv ers at te m pt in g to ru n ov er po li ce

of fic ers

. D. Ct

. Ord er of Ja n. 27

, 20 17

, at 13

. The co ur t co nc lu de d th at Perk in s th us

ha d no t sh own a pa tt ern of co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

, ev en as su m in g th at so m e of fic ers

ha d “ act ed im

pr ud en tl y be cau se th ey co ul d ha ve st ay ed in si de th ei r ve hi cl es

, wait ed

3 Perk in s arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t rel ie d on a “ no n- ex is te nt qu ot at io n” fro m

Ro ge rs

, A p p el la nt ’s Br. 8, an d th us erro ne ou sl y co nc lu de d th at “ de li be rat e

in di ffer en ce wi l l n o t b e fo un d if th e al le ge d m is co nd uc t was in ve st ig at ed an d

ex on erat ed or if th e of

fic er was di sc ip li ne d,” se e D. Ct

. Ord er of Ja n. 27

, 20 17

, at 9.

The d i s t r i c t c ou rt co rrec te d th is erro r in it s or de r de nyin g Perk in s’s m ot io n to

reco ns id er. See D. Ct

. Ord er of Mar. 24

, 20 17

, at 10 -1 2. Perk in s al so cri ti ci zes th e

di st ric t co ur t fo r rel y in g on ev id en ce in cl ud ed in th e reco r d b ut no t ci te d by th e

pa rti es

. The Fed eral Ru le s of C i vi l Pro ced ur e cl earl y al lo w th e di st ric t co ur t to

c o ns id er th e m at eri al s in th e reco rd

. Fed

. R. Ci v. P. 56 (c)( 3) (“ The co u r t n e e d

co ns id er on ly th e ci te d m at eri al s, bu t it m ay co ns id er ot he r m at eri al s in th e reco rd .”).

-1 4-fo r ba ck up

, or go tt en ou t of the way .” Id

. at 14

. Perk in s has no t ex pl ai ne d wh et he r

or ho w th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in it s an al y si s of th os e in ci de nt s, bu t rat he r arg ue s th at

s h e ha s es ta bl is he d “ th at se ve ral of fic ers fir ed at se ve ral ve hi cl es de sp it e th em n o t

be in g in th e pa th o f s a i d ve hi cl es .” App el la nt ’s Br. 48 -4 9; se e id

. at 22

. Eve n

as su m in g th at th e ev id en ce can su pp or t he r as se rti on

, Perk in s st il l ha s no t sh own th at

ex ces si ve fo rce was us ed in th os e sh oo ti ng s, fo r co ns ti tu ti on al ly pe rm is si bl e reas on s

co ul d ex is t fo r an of

fic er to sh oo t at a m ov in g ve hi cl e ev en whe n no t in th e ve hi cl e’s

pa th

.

Perk in s al so arg ue d at su m m ary jud gm en t th at cert ai n ot he r po li ce sh oo ti ng s

de m on st rat ed a pa tt ern of ex ces si ve fo rce. The di st ric t co ur t co ns id ered ev id en ce of

th os e sh oo ti ng s, bu t fo un d “ Perk in s’s acco un ts of th es e ev en ts [to b e ] l arg el y

sp ecu la ti ve .” D. Ct

. Ord er of Ja n. 27

, 20 17

, at 11

. On ap pe al

, Perk in s ci te s fai lu res

in th e in ve st ig at io n o f a p ol ic e sh oo ti ng th at oc cu rred in Decem be r 20 10

. The

pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve of th at vi ct im ’s es ta te br ou gh t su it

, an d th e cas e se tt le d aft er

th e of fic er was de ni ed qu al ifi ed im m un it y

. W hi le th at la wsu it pu t th e Ci ty on no ti ce

of a po ss ib le co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n, on e un jus t i f i e d sh oo ti ng do es no t es ta bl is h a

pa tt ern of co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

, an d Perk in s ha s no t sh own th at th e di st ric t co ur t

erre d i n i ts an al y si s o f th e o th er s ho ot in gs it co ns id ered

.

Perk in s co nt en ds th at he r ex pe rt es ta b li sh ed “ in st an ces of ‘facad e’

in ve st ig at io ns an d in ad eq ua te su pe rv is io n” an d th at th e di s t r i ct co ur t’s “ fai lu re to

ad dr es s— or ev en to m en ti on —t hi s co m pe te nt

, ad m is si bl e an d un op po se d ex pe rt

ev id en ce is who ll y in ex pl ic ab le

, a n d c o n s t i t ut es erro r.” App el la nt ’s Br. 27

. The

reco rd rev eal s, ho wev er, th at th e di st ric t co ur t ad dr es se d th is ex pe rt ev id en ce i n i ts

o rd er de nyin g reco ns id erat io n, co nc lu di ng th at Cl ark ’s rep o rt an d te sti m ony co uld no t

es ta bl is h a pa tt ern be cau se hi s op in io n was ba se d on ly on hi s st at is ti cal an al y si s an d

no t on act ua l in ci de nt s in vo lv in g ex ces si ve for ce b y Lit tl e Ro ck po li ce o ffi cers

. D.

Ct

. Ord er of Mar

. 24

, 20 17

, at 4- 5. W e fin d no e r r o r i n th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at

-1 5-th os e st at is ti cs al on e were in su ffi ci en t to pr es en t a tri ab le is su e on Perk in s’s fai lu reto -in ve st ig at e cl ai m

. See St rau ss v. Ci ty of Ch ic ag o

, 76 0 F.2 d 76 5, 76 8- 69 (7 th Ci r.

19 85 ) (ex pl ai ni ng th at ev id en ce th at th e po li ce de pa rtment su st ai ne d on ly si x to se ve n

pe rcen t of al l reg is te red co m pl ai nt s “ in di cat e[d ] no th in g” wit ho ut id en ti fy in g w h a t

m ad e th e pr io r co nd uc t il le ga l an d wit h ou t “ sh ow[ in g] th at a si m il ar il le ga li ty was

in vo lv ed in [th e p la in ti ff’s] case ” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ).

In su m

, Perk in s cl ai m s on ap pe al th at th e Ci ty m ai nt ai ne d a cu st om of faca de

in ve st ig at io ns ba se d on al le ge d sh or tc om in gs in th e Ci ty’ s in ve st ig at io ns in to of fic erin vo lv ed sh oo ti ng s. The act io na bl e m un ic ip al cu st om he re m

us t be on e of de li be rat e

in di ffer en ce to a pa tt ern of ex ces si ve fo rce, ho wev er, w hi ch Perk in s ha s no t

es ta bl is he d in li gh t of th e fact th at sh e ha s no t sh own a pa tt ern of un de rlyin g

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

.

Fo r th e same reaso n, we u ph ol d t he gra nt of su m m ary jud gm en t on Perk in s’s

cl ai m al le gi ng th at th e Ci ty ha d fai le d to tra in or su pe rv is e it s po li ce of fic ers

. 4 Fo r th e

Ci ty to b e li ab le un de r th is th eo ry

, th e “ m un ic ip al it y ’s fai lu re t o t rai n i ts em pl oyees

in a rel ev an t res pe ct m

us t am ou nt to ‘del ib erat e in di ffer en ce to th e rig ht s of pe rs on s

4 Perk in s al so su ed Tho m as in hi s of fic ia l cap aci ty as po li ce ch ie f. “ As we ha ve

no te d, ‘[a] su it ag ai ns t a pu bl ic of fic ia l in hi s of

fic ia l cap aci ty is act ua ll y a su it ag ai ns t

th e en ti ty fo r whi ch th e of fic ia l is an ag en t.’” Parr is h v. Bal l

, 59 4 F.3 d 99 3, 99 7 (8 th

Ci r. 20 10 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Eld er-Ke ep v. Aks am it

, 46 0 F.3 d 97 9, 98 6

(8 th Cir . 20 06 ) ).

W e no te in pa ss in g th at Perk in s al le ge d in he r co m p l a i nt th at “ Has ti ng s was

tra in ed in th e ap pr op ria te us e of fo rce fo r po li ce of fic ers ” an d “ was fu ll y aware th at

an of fic er m ay no t us e de ad ly fo rce in si tu at io ns whe re hi s li fe an d sa fet y

, or th os e of

ot he rs

, is no t in da ng er.” Co m pl

. ¶ 97

. T h e C i t y pr es en te d ev id en ce th at Has ti ng s

c o m pl et ed ap pr ox im at el y 1,5 00 ho ur s of tra in in g, in cl ud in g po li ce acad em y

, f i e l d

tra in in g, an d a nn ua l co ur se s o n t he us e o f fo rce.

-1 6-wit h who m th e [u nt rai ne d em pl oyees] co m e in to co nt act .’ ” Co nn ic k v . Tho m ps on

,

56 3 U.S. 51

, 61 (2 01 1) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Can to n

, 48 9 U.S. at 38 8 ); se e

Til so n v. Fo rres t Ci ty Po li ce Dep ’t

, 28 F.3 d 80 2, 80 7 (8 th Ci r. 19 94 ) ( “ The st an da rd

o f l i a bi li ty fo r fai lu re to su pe rv is e is ‘dem on st rat ed de li be rat e in di ffer en ce or t a c i t

au th or iz at io n o f th e of

fen si ve act s.’” (q uo ti ng Bo li n v. Bl ack , 87 5 F .2d 13 43 , 13 47

(8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) )). “ A pa tt ern of si m il ar co ns ti tu ti on al vi o l at io ns by un tra in ed

e m pl oyees is ‘ord in ari ly ne ces sa ry ’ to de m on st rat e de li be rat e in di ffer en c e f o r

pu rp os es of fai lu re to tra in .” Co nn ic k , 5 63 U.S

. a t 62 (q uo ti ng Bro wn , 5 20 U.S. a t

40 9 ); se e B a l l

, 59 4 F.3 d at 10 02 (req ui rin g “ no ti ce of a pa tt ern of un co ns ti tu ti on al

act s co m m it te d by su bo rd in at es ” to es ta bl is h a fai lu re-t o- su pe rv is e cl ai m ). As se t

fo rth ab ov e, Perk in s ha s no t es ta bl is he d a pa tt ern of si m il ar co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

.

B. In di vi du al Cap aci ty Clai m s Ag ai ns t Ch ie f Tho m as

W e reject Perk in s’s co nt en ti on th at Ch ie f Tho m as sh ou ld be he ld in di vi du al ly

li ab le fo r Mo or e’s de at h ba se d on hi s de ci si on to hi re Has ti ng s. The Su pr em e Co ur t

h a s se t fo rth an ex act in g te st fo r im po si ng li ab il it y ba se d on a hi rin g de ci si on

,

req ui rin g a co ur t to “ care fu ll y te st th e li nk be twee n th e po li cy m ak er’s in ad eq ua te

de ci si on an d th e pa r t i c u l a r in jury al le ge d.” Bro wn

, 52 0 U.S. at 41 0 ; se e id

. at 41 5

( “ Cas es in vo lv in g co ns ti t u t i o n a l in juri es al le ge dl y tra ceab le to an il l-c on si de red

hi rin g de ci si on po se th e gr eat es t ris k th at a m un ic ip al it y w i l l be he ld li ab le fo r an

in jury th at it di d n ot cau se .” ); Mo rri s v . Crawfo rd Cty, , 29 9 F .3d 91 9, 9 23 (8t h Ci r.

20 02 ) ( “ The pr io r co m

pl ai nt s in an ap pl ic an t’s ba ck gr ou nd m us t be ne arl y id en ti cal

to th e type of of

fic er m is co nd uc t th at cau se d th e co ns ti tu ti on al de pr iv at io n al le ge dl y

s u f f ered by a pl ai nt iff

.” ). Perk in s po in ts to ev id en ce th at Tho m as was fri en ds wit h

Has ti ng s’s fat he r, th at Has ti ng s at te nd ed a Ku Klu x Klan m eet in g in hi gh sc ho ol

, th at

th ere were irr eg ul ari ti es in Has ti ng s’s po lygrap h ex am in at io n, an d th at a li eu te na nt

ad vi se d ag ai ns t hi rin g Has t in gs

. W e co nc lu de th at th e refe rred -to ev id en ce can no t

es ta bl is h th e es se nt ia l li nk be twee n Th om as ’s de ci si on to hi re Has ti ng s an d hi s us e

-1 7-of ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Mo or e. St at ed di ffer en tl y

, th e ev id en ce pr es en ts no

ge nu i n e is su e of m at eri al fact th at a “ pl ai nl y ob vi ou s co ns eq ue nc e of th e hi rin g

de ci si on ” wou ld be Has ti ng s’s un jus ti fie d us e of de ad ly fo rce. See Bro wn

, 52 0 U.S.

at 41 2

.

W e al so reject Perk in s’s arg um en t th a t s h e ha s pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce

to pr ecl ud e su m

mar y j ud gm en t on he r cl ai m th at Tho m as fai le d to ad eq ua te ly t rai n

or su pe rv is e Has t i n g s

. A su pe rv is or m ay be he ld li ab le “ if a fai lu re to pr op erl y

su pe r v i s e an d tra in th e of fen di ng em

pl oyee cau se d a de pr iv at io n of co ns ti tu ti on al

rig ht s.” Tlam ka v. Serr el l

, 24 4 F.3 d 62 8, 63 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ) (q uo ti ng And rews

, 98

F.3 d at 10 78 ). The pl ai nt iff m us t sh ow th at th e su pe rv is or “ (1 ) ha d no ti ce of a pa tt ern

of un co ns ti tu ti on al act s co m m it te d by su bo rd in at es ; (2 ) was de li be rat el y in di ffer en t

to or ta ci tl y au th or iz ed th os e act s; an d (3 ) fai le d to ta ke su ffi ci en t rem ed ia l act io n; (4 )

pr ox im at el y

cau si ng in

jury to [th e p la in ti ff].” Brewi ng to n v . Keen er , 90 2 F .3d 79 6,

80 3 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 01 8) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (q uo ti ng Liv ers v. Sch en ck

,

70 0 F

. 3 d 34 0, 35 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) ). To pr ov e de li be rat e in di ffer en ce, th e pl ai nt iff

m us t sh ow th at th e su pe rv is or “ ha d no ti c e th at th e tra in in g pr oc ed ur es were

in ad eq ua te an d li ke ly to res ul t in a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.” Liv ers

, 70 0 F.3 d at 35 6

(q uo ti ng And rews , 98 F.3d at 1 07 8 ).

Perk in s ha s no t pr es en te d su ffi ci en t ev id en ce to sh ow th at Tho m as ha d no ti ce

of a pa tt ern of ex ces si ve fo rce by Lit tl e Ro ck of fic ers

, no r ha s sh e sh own th at he act ed

wit h de li be rat e in di ffer en ce. Has ti ng s’s di sc ip li na ry r e c o r d i n di cat es th at he was a

l a zy an d care le ss po li ce of fic er, se em in gl y un ab le to co m pl et e th e pa pe rwo r k

req ui rem en ts or m eet th e sc he du li ng de m an d s o f p o l i c e wor k. He al so en ga ge d in

un be co m in g co nd uc t an d us ed in ap pr op ria te la ng ua ge

. W hi le th os e vi ol at io ns of th e

po li ce de pa rtment’s ge ne ral or de rs or ru le s an d reg ul at io ns sp eak v o l u m es ab ou t

Has ti n g s’s ge ne ral un fit ne ss fo r po li ce wor k, th ey do no t es ta bl is h a pa tt ern of

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns

, no r do th ey sh ow th at Tho m as ’s fai lu re to tra in or su pe rv is e

-1 8-H a s t i n g s r es ul te d in Mo or e’s de at h. See Liv ers

, 70 0 F.3 d at 35 6 ( “ To im p o s e

su pe rv is or y li ab il it y

, ot he r m is co nd uc t m us t be ve ry si m il ar to th e co nd uc t gi vi ng ris e

to li ab il it y .” ).

W it h res pe ct to Has ti ng s’s us e of fo rce ov er the co ur se of hi s caree r, Tho m as

or de red ad di ti on al su pe rv is io n an d ad di ti on al tra in in g aft er Has ti ng s tri gg ered th ree

EIS al ert s an d on e ci ti zen co m pl ai nt in 20 09 an d 20 10

. Fo ll owi ng th os e rem ed ia l

act io ns

, Has ti ng s ha d no fu rth er EIS al ert s or ci ti zen co m pl ai nt s rel at in g to th e us e of

fo rce. Alt ho ug h Perk in s arg ue s th at Th o ma s sh ou ld ha ve di sc ip li ne d Has ti ng s fo r

“ bo dy-sl am [m in g] a m en ta ll y -il l, ho m el es s bl ack wom an ” in Ju ly 20 10

, App el la nt ’s

Br. 41

, Has ti ng s rep or t e d t h a t th e wom an ha d st ru ck hi m an d th at he was tryin g to

pr ev en t he r fro m st rik in g hi m ag ai n. Oth er tha n hi s us e of th e wor d “ bo dy sl am ” to

de sc rib e th e ta ke do wn, th e reco rd do es no t su pp or t an inf eren ce tha t Hast in gs ’s us e

of fo r c e w a s un co ns ti tu ti on al or th at Tho m as ha d no ti ce th at th e rep or t was fal se

.

Fi na ll y

, rel y in g on st at is ti cs

, Perk in s cl ai m s th at Has ti ng s us ed fo rce m or e freq ue nt ly

ag ai ns t raci al m in or it ie s, bu t in th e ab se nc e of e v i d e n c e t ha t th e fo rce us ed ag ai ns t

r a c ia l m in or it ie s was ex ces si ve or ot he rwis e un jus ti fie d, th os e st at is ti cs d o n o t

su pp or t a su pe rv is or y cl ai m ag ai ns t Tho m as

. Perk in s ha s th us no t su bm it te d ev id en ce

su ffi ci en t to sh ow th at Tho m as ha d no ti ce th at hi s tra in in g an d su p e rv is io n were

in ad eq ua te an d l ik el y

to res ul t i n t he us e o f ex ces si ve for ce ag ai ns t M oo re.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

-1 9-