# 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- 13 82

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Jo sh Brewi ng to n

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ben Keen er, Offi cer, In di vi du al ly and in hi s Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty as an Ind ep en de nc e Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep ut y ; St ev e Je ffer y , She rif f, In di vi du al ly and in hi s Off ic ia l Cap aci ty as Sh eri ff o f th e In de pe nd en ce Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 7- 14 33

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Jo sh Brewi ng to n

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

ff - App el la nt

v.

Ben Keen er, Offi cer, In di vi du al ly and in hi s Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty as an Ind ep en de nc e Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep ut y ; St ev e Je ffer y , She rif f, In di vi du al ly and in hi s Off ic ia l Cap aci ty as Sh eri ff o f th e In de pe nd en ce Co un ty Sheri ff’s Dep art m en t

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

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

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 - B at es vi ll e__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 1, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Aug us t 3 0, 2 01 8

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

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

SMI TH, Chi ef J ud ge

.

In th is ex ces si ve fo rce su it
, Jo sh Brewi ng to n ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t 1
of su m m ary jud gm en t to In de pe nd en ce Co un ty (“ Co un ty”) Sh eri ff St ev e Je ffer y an d Dep ut y Ben Keen er in t he ir of fic ia l cap aci ti es , as well as th e gr an t of qu al ifi ed
im m un it y to Sh eri ff Je ffer y in hi s in di vi du al cap aci ty. Brewi ng to n al so as se rts th at fo ll owi ng en try of de fau lt jud gm en t ag ai ns t Dep ut y Keen er in hi s in di vi du al cap aci ty, th e di st ric t co ur t erro ne ou sl y cal cu la te d Brewi ng to n’s co m pe n sa to ry da m ag es an d

at to rn ey s’ fees . W e aff

irm.

I. Bac kg ro un d
On Aug us t 26
, 20 14
, Brewi ng to n st ol e it em s fro m th e lo cal W al m art

. He fle d
th e sc en e in a ve hi cl e wit h po te nt ia l acco m pl ic es

. Dep ut y Keen er was res po nd in g to th e th eft ca ll an d was walk in g to ward th e W al m art en tra nc e as Brewi ng to n an d

co m pa ny dro ve by in t he pa rk in g l ot

.

Law en fo rcem en t of

fic ers so on st op pe d th e ve hi cl e an d rem ov ed Brewi ng to n

an d th e ot he r in di vi du al s fr om th e car . The o ffi cers ha nd cu ffed Brewi ng to n a nd hi s

co m pa ni on s an d pl aced th em on th e gr ou nd in se at ed po si ti on s ne ar th e ve hi cl e. So on

a f t er, Dep ut y Keen er arri ve d at th e arre st sc en e. W it ho ut pr ov oc at io n an d w i t h o u t

The Hon or ab le Ja m es M

. M o od y Jr
., Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 East ern Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-co m

m un ic at in g hi s in te nt to th e ot he r of fic ers , Dep ut y Keen er an gr il y ki ck ed Brewi ng to n on ce to th e s i d e o f h i s face

. Afte rward s, th e ot he r of fic ers cal le d an

am bu la nc e fo r Brewi ng to n, whi ch so on arri ve d. Th e n ex t da y , Dep ut y Keen er

su bm it te d hi s res ig na ti on to th e Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce, tu rn in g in hi s ba dg e an d hi s
gu n. The Co un ty te rm in at ed Dep ut y Keen er as w e l l

. Th e in ci de nt le d to cri m in al ch arg es ag ai ns t Dep ut y Keen er, a n d h e e v en tu al ly pl ead ed gu il ty to th ird -d eg ree ba tt ery.

Brewi ng to n su ed Sh eri ff Je ffer y an d Dep ut y Keen er, bo th in th ei r of fic ia l an d 2
in di vi du al cap a c i t i e s , al le gi ng ex ces si ve fo rce du rin g hi s arre st un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 83
, Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 23 -1 05 (a), an d Ark an sa s to rt la w. Brewi ng to n ack no wled ge d th at th e Co un ty ha d a writ te n us e-o f-fo rce po li cy an d th at Dep ut y Ke e n e r ’s ki ck vi ol at ed th e po li cy

. Brewi ng to n, ho wev er, al le ge d th at de sp it e th e writ te n p ol ic y , th e Co un ty Sheri ff’s O ffi ce had an un writ te n ru le , po li cy , or c us to m

en co ur ag in g it s of

fic ers to ph y si cal ly as sa ul t su sp ect s who at te m pt to fle e. He al le ge d
th at Sh eri ff Je ffer y ha d in st it ut ed th e un writ te n po li cy o r c u s t o m an d th at Sh eri ff
Je ffer y fai le d t o a de qu at el y

tra in or s up erv is e Dep ut y Keen er.

Upo n co ns id erat io n of th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d

s u mm a r y jud gm en t in fav or of Sh eri ff Je ffer y an d Dep ut y Keen er in th ei r of fic ia l

cap aci ti es

. The co ur t di sm is se d th os e cl ai m s aft er fin di ng “ no ev id e n ce to de m on st rat e th at th e act io ns of [Dep ut y ] Keen er were m ot iv at ed by a Co un ty po li cy

or cu st om of v io la ti ng cit iz en ’s rig ht s t o b e free fro m ex ces si ve for ce.” Brew in gt on

v. Kee ne r , No. 1: 15 -cv -0 00 88 -J M, 20 17 W L 59 53 13 1, at *2 (E.D. Ark

. Feb

. 1, 20 17 ). The di st ric t co ur t al so fo un d th at Brewi ng to n fai le d to pr es en t “ pr oo f of ‘w id es pr ead

un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t th at was so pe rv as iv e an d well -s et tl ed th at it ha d th e effe ct of la w.’ ” Id

. (q uo ti ng Smi th v. W at ki ns , 15 9 F.3 d 11 37
, 11 38 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 )). It al so
gr an te d qu al ifi ed im m

un it y to Sh eri ff Je ffer y , fin di ng th at Brewi ng to n “ of fer[ ed ] no

Sh eri ff J effe ry

is no lo ng er t he sh eri ff o f th e Co un ty. 2

-3

-pr oo f th at Sh eri ff Je ff[e r]y ha d no ti ce of a pa tt ern of co nd uc t by Keen er th at vi ol at ed

a cl earl y est ab li sh ed co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht .” Id

. at * 3 (c it at io n o m it te d)

.

The Co un ty, ha vi ng te rm in at ed Dep ut y Keen er’s em pl oym en t, de cl in ed to de fen d Dep ut y Keen e r ag ai ns t Brewi ng to n’s in di vi du al cap aci ty cl ai m s. Dep ut y Keen er fai le d to an swe r Brewi ng to n’s co m pl ai nt or to ap pe ar be fo re th e di st ric t co ur t
to de fen d th e la wsu it

. The co ur t gr an te d Brewi ng to n’s m ot io n to en te r de fau lt jud gm en t ag ai ns t Dep ut y Keen er. The co ur t pr oc eed ed to he ar ev id en ce on da m ag es

. At a be nc h tri al
, Brewi ng to n’s m ed ic al ex pe rt te st ifi e d a b o u t th e ex te nt of Brewi ng to n’s de nt al da m ag es an d op in e d t h a t Brewi ng to n req ui red co m pl et e an d

pe rm an en t de nt ur es

. The di st ric t co ur t a w ard ed Brewi ng to n $3 8,6 93 .67 in

co m pe nsa tor y an d $75, 000 in pun it iv e da m ag es ag ai ns t Dep ut y Keen er. Brew ing ton ’ s

co un se l req ue st ed $4 1,9 20 .00 in at to rn ey s’ f e es , bu t th e di st ric t co ur t red uc ed th e award to $1 6,5 00 , cit in g d up li cat iv e wor k.

II. Dis cu ss io n Brewi ng to n ap pe al s, co nt en di ng th at th e di st ric t c o u r t erro ne ou sl y gr an te d

su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Sh eri ff Je ffer y an d Dep ut y K e e n e r in th ei r of fic ia l

cap aci ti es

. Brewi ng to n al so as se rts th e di s t r i c t c ou rt erre d in gr an ti ng qu al ifi ed
im m un it y to Sh eri ff Je ffer y

. Nex t, he cl ai m s th e di st ric t co ur t m is ap pl ie d th e st an da rd fo r cau sa ti on in cal cu la ti ng co m pe ns at or y da m ag es

. Last
, Brewi ng to n av ers th at th e di st ric t co ur t ab us ed it s di sc ret io n in red uc in g th e at to rn ey s’ fees award

. W e ad dr es s each arg um en t i n t ur n.

A. Off ic ia l Ca pa ci ty Cla ims Brewi ng to n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t
to Sh eri ff Je ffer y an d Dep ut y Keen er in th ei r of fic ia l cap aci ti es

. Brewi ng to n as se rts th at de sp it e ha vi ng an of

fic ia l writ te n po li cy ag ai ns t th e us e of ex ces si ve fo r c e , t he
Co un ty al so ha d an un st at ed
, u n o f fic ia l co nt rary cu st om an d pr act ic e. Thi s al le ge d

un st at ed po li cy co nd on ed ex c e s s i v e f or ce ag ai ns t arre st ees who at te m pt to fle e.

-4

-Alt ern at iv el y , Brewi ng to n co nt en ds t h a t b e cau se Sh eri ff Je ffer y was a fin al

po li cy m ak er, hi s u n w r i t t e n po li cy of ex ces si ve fo rce ha s th e fo rce of co m m an d

su ffi ci en t fo r co un ty li ab il it y

. “ W e rev ie w a di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of s u m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , dr awin g all reas on ab le in fere nc es , wit ho ut res or t t o s pe cu la ti on , in fav or of th e no nm ov in g pa rty.” And er so n v. Dur ha m D & M, L.L.C.
, 60 6 F.3 d 51 3,
51 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (q uo ti ng Jo h n s o n v

. Rea dy Mix ed Co nc re te Co

. , 4 24 F.3 d 80 6,
81 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 )). “ Su m m ary jud gm en t is ap p r o p r i a t e whe n th ere is no ge nu in e is su e of 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.” Id

. (ci ti ng Jo hn so n , 42 4 F .3d at 8 10 ).

Brewi ng to n fil ed su it ag ai nst Sh er if f Je ffer y an d Dep ut y Keen er in th ei r of fic ia l

cap aci ti es , an d as su ch
, “ it m us t be tre at ed a s a s u it ag ai ns t th e Co un ty.” Li eb e v. 3
No r t o n , 1 5 7 F

. 3 d 57 4, 57 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (ci ti ng Haf er v. Mel o , 50 2 U.S. 21
, 25 (1 99 1) ).

The Ark an sa s Civ il Ri gh ts Act (ACRA) di rect s Ark an sa s cou rts to “ lo ok fo r 3
gu id an ce to st at e an d fed eral de ci si on s in te rp ret in g th e Ci vi l Rig ht s Act of 18 71
, as

am en de d a nd co di fie d i n 42 U.S.C. § 19 83 .” Ark . Cod e Ann . § 1 6- 12 3- 10 5( c). The Ark an sa s Su pr em e Co ur t al so n o t e d w i t h ap pr ov al th at “ th e [Ark an sa s] co ur t of ap pe al s ha s rel ie d on fed eral pr eced en t to an al y ze an ex ces si ve -fo rce cl ai m un de r th e ACRA.” Gra ha m v. Ca wt ho rn , 42 7 S.W .3d 34
, 45 (Ark

. 20 13 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) ; se e al so Rep ki ng v. Lo key
, 37 7 S.W .3d 21 1, 22 0 (Ark

. 20 10 ) (ci ti ng Feg an s v. No rr is , 89 S.W .3d 91 9 (Ark

. 2 0 0 2 ) )

. W e th eref or e an al y ze Brewi ng to n’s fed eral an d ACRA cl ai m s co -e xte ns iv el y us in g fed eral st an da rd s. Se e Hen de rs on v. Sim m ons F oods

, In c. , 21 7 F.3 d 61 2, 61 5 n.3 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (“ Cl ai m s pr em is ed un de r th e Ark an sa s Ci vi l Ri gh ts Act of 19 93 are an al y zed in th e sa m e m an ne r as [fed eral ] cl ai m s.” (ci ti ng Ark

. Co de Ann

. § 16 -1 23 -1 03 (c)) ); se e al so Hes s v. Abl es , 71 4 F.3 d 10 48
, 10 54 (8 th Ci r. 20 13 ) (h ol di ng th at “ be cau se [th e ap pe ll an t] di d no t ex pl ai n why [h er] ACRA cl ai m s

warra nt ed se pa rat e an al y si s, th e di st ric t co ur t d i d n o t e rr in di sm is si ng th e ACRA cl ai m s al on gs id e th e § 19 83 cl ai m s” (ci ti ng Lewi s v. Ja cks
, 48 6 F.3 d 10 25
, 10 30 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ))).

-5

-In Mon el l v. New Y o r k Ci ty Dep t. of So ci al Se rv ic es , 43 6 U.S. 65 8, 98 S. Ct

. 20 18
, 56 L. Ed. 2d 6 1 1 ( 1 9 7 8 )
, [th e Su pr em e Co ur t] de ci de d th at a m

un ic ip al it y can be fo un d li ab le un de r § 19 83 on ly whe re th e m un ic ip al it y it

se lf cau se s th e co ns ti tu ti on al vi o l a t i o n at is su e. Resp on de at su

pe ri or or vi cari ou s li ab il it y wil l no t at ta ch un de r § 19 83

. Id

. , at 69 4– 69 5, 98 S. Ct

. at 20 37 –3 8. “ It is on ly whe n th e ‘execu ti on of th e go ve rn m en t’s po li cy or cu st om

. . . in fli ct s t h e i n ju r y’ th at th e

m un ic ip al it y m ay be he ld li ab le un de r § 19 83 .” Sp ri ng fi el d v. Ki bb e , 48 0 U.S. 25 7, 26 7, 10 7 S. Ct

. 11 14
, 11 19
, 94 L. Ed. 2d 29 3 (1 98 7) (O’CONNO R, J., di ss en ti ng ) (q uo ti ng Mon el l
, su pr a , at 43 6 U.S. at 69 4, 98 S. Ct. at 20 37 –3 8)

.

Ci ty of Ca nt on v. Har ri s , 48 9 U.S. 3 7 8
, 3 8 5 (1 98 9) (el li ps is in or ig in al ). W he n a pl ai nt iff can po in t to a m

un ic ip al po li cy th at ei th er “ vi ol at es fed eral la w, or di rect s an

em pl oyee to do so ,” “ no ev id en ce i s nee de d ot he r th an a st at em en t of the m un ic ip al

po li cy an d it s ex erci se ” to es ta bl is h a co ns ti tu ti on al v io la ti on

. Sz ab la v. Ci ty of
Bro ok ly n Par k, Min n. , 48 6 F.3 d 38 5, 38 9, 39 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (fi rs t qu ot in g Bd. of th e Ct y. Co mm’rs v. Bro wn , 52 0 U.S. 39 7, 40 4– 05 (1 99 7)
, th en ci ti ng Ci ty of Okla

. Ci ty

v. Tu tt l e , 47 1 U.S. 80 8, 82 2– 23 (1 98 5) (p lu ral it y op in io n) ). Bu t whe n a pl ai nt iff
al le ge s an un writ te n o r un of fic ia l p ol ic y , th ere m

us t be “ ev id en ce of .

. . a p ract ic e,

so pe rm an en t an d well -s et tl ed so as to co ns ti tu te a cu st om , th at ex is te d.” Dav is on v. C i t y o f Min ne ap ol is , 49 0 F.3 d 64 8, 65 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ci ti ng Ci ty of St

. Lo ui s v. Pra pr ot ni k , 48 5 U.S. 1 12 , 12 1 (1 98 8) ).

Thu s, at i s s u e he re is whe th er th e Co un ty of fic ia ll y or un of

fic ia ll y di rect ed Dep ut y Keen er to us e ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t Brewi ng to n. Br ew ing ton ac knowle dg es th at th e Co un ty ha s a writ te n po li cy ex pr es sl y pr o hi bi ti ng ex ces si ve fo rce. He

co nt en ds
, ho wev er, th at de sp it e th e writ te n po li cy , th e Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce ha d

a cu st om or pr act ic e of ex ces si ve fo rce ag ai ns t arre st ees who at te m pt to fle e. W e

ex pl ai ne d p rev io us ly tha t

-6

-a pl ai nt iff m ay es ta bl is h m un ic ip al li ab il it y th ro ugh an uno ffi ci al cu st om of th e m un ic ip al it y by de m on st rat in g “ (1 ) th e ex is te nc e of a co nt in ui ng , wid es pr ead
, pe rs is te nt pa tt ern of un co ns ti tu ti on a l m is co nd uc t by th e go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty’ s em pl oyees; (2 ) de li be rat e in di ffer en ce to or ta ci t

au th or iz at io n of su ch co nd uc t by th e go ve rn m en ta l en ti ty’ s po li cy m ak in g of

fic ia ls aft er no ti ce to th e of fic ia ls of th at m i s c o n d u c t;

an d (3 ) th at pl ai n t i f

f was in jure d by ac ts pu rs ua nt to th e go ve rn m en ta l

en ti ty’ s cu st om , i.e., th at th e cu st om was a m ov in g f o rce be hi nd th e

co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.”

Co rw in v. Cit

y of In de p., Mo

. , 82 9 F .3d 69 5, 7 00 (8t h C ir. 2 01 6) (qu ot in g Sn id er v. Ci ty of Ca

pe Gir ar de au , 75 2 F.3 d 1 1 49
, 11 60 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )). The pa tt ern of

un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t m us t be so pe rv as iv e an d wid es pr ead so “ as to ha ve th e effe ct an d fo rce of la w

. ” An dr ews v. Fow le r , 98 F.3 d 10 69
, 10 75 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 ) (ci ta ti on s o m it te d)

.

Brewi ng to n at te m

pt s to sh ow th e Co un ty eng ag ed in a pa tt ern of wi de sp read

an d pe rs is te nt un co ns ti tu t i o na l co nd uc t by pr es en ti ng affi da vi ts fro m two fo rm er de pu ty sh eri ffs as well as Dep ut y Keen er’s te st im on y

. The fo rm er de pu ti es reco un te d

an in ci de nt se ve ral y ears earl ie r whe re th ey al le ge d th at Sh eri ff Je ffer y was in vo lv ed
in an ex ces si ve fo rce in ci de nt

. Dep ut y Keen er te st ifi ed at hi s de po si ti on th at a

se rg ean t in fo rm ed hi m th at th e Co un ty Sh eri ff’s Offi ce it se lf ha d a po li cy of m ak in g

an ex am pl e of arre st ees who at te m pt to fle e; th e se rg ean t al l e g e d l y to ld Dep ut y Keen er to w h ip
, ki ck
, hi t, or do so m et hi ng to de te r th e arre st ees

. Dep ut y Keen er

reca ll ed on e in ci de nt whe re— so met im e be twee n 20 09 an d 20 14 —a su sp ect was be at en as h e w a l k ed th ro ug h a ga un tl et of of fic ers

. In su m , as ev id en ce of th e Co un ty’ s a ll eg ed un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t, Dep ut y Keen er an d th e two fo rm er de pu ti es de sc rib ed two pr io r in ci de nt s of ex ce s s i v e fo rce. Add it io na ll y , Dep ut y Keen er— th ro ug h he ars ay —t es ti fie d th at he was in fo rm ed of an in fo rm al cu st om by
a h ig he r-ra nk in g o ffi cer, b ut no t b y Sh eri ff J effe ry

.

-7

-B rewi ng to n’s ev id en ce fal ls sh or t. Fi rs t, in ad m is si bl e he ars ay di sc ov e r e d

du rin g di sc ov ery may n o t be us ed to de feat su m m ary jud gm en t. Sh av er v. In de p. St av e Co

. , 35 0 F.3 d 71 6, 72 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (“ The re a r e l im it s on wha t ki nd s of

ev id en ce a jud ge m ay co ns id er in rev ie win g a m ot io n f o r s u mm ary jud gm en t, an d
in ad m is si bl e ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g di sc ov ery can no t be us ed to de feat su ch a

m ot io n

. ” ( c it in g May s v. Rho de s , 25 5 F.3 d 64 4, 64 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 01 ))). Brewi ng to n
pr es en ts no ba si s fo r ad m is si on of Dep ut y Keen er’s he ars ay te st im on y

. Seco nd
, in th e f a ce of an ex pr es s m

un ic ip al po li cy pr oh ib it in g ex ces si ve fo rce, two in ci de nt s o f

ex ces si ve fo rce— ev en as su m ed to be tru e—c an no t be co ns id ered a pa tt ern of wid es pr ead an d pe rv as iv e un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t. Se e Smi th
, 15 9 F.3 d at 11 38 (“ W e rece nt ly he ld th at two sp eci fic co m pl ai nt s an d va rio us ru m or s ab ou t an of fic er

were no t su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a p ol ic y or cu st om of co nd on in g un co ns ti tu ti on al

co nd uc t.” (ci ti ng And

re ws , 98 F.3 d at 10 76 )); se e al so Rob er ts v. Ci ty of Sh re vep or t , 39 7 F.3 d 28 7, 29 5 (5 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (h ol di ng th at ev id en ce of an of fic er br an di sh in g hi s ha nd gu n du rin g a tra ffi c st op , co m m it ti ng on e ot he r in ci de n t o f d e ad ly fo rce, an d

rece iv in g two co m

pl ai nt s of ex ces si ve fo rce in su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h a pa tt ern of

un co ns ti tu ti on al co nd uc t); Pin ed a v. Ci ty of Hou st on , 29 1 F.3 d 32 5, 32 9 (5 th C i r. 20 02 ) (co nc lu di ng th at el ev en in ci de nt s were in su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh an

un co ns ti tu ti on al pa tt ern ).

In th e al te rn at iv e, Brewi ng to n a rg ue s t ha t b ecau se Sh eri ff J effe ry was a fin al

po li cy m ak er, hi s act io n co ns ti tu te s th e crea ti on of an un of fic ia l cu st om

. Se e Dav is on , 49 0 F.3 d at 65 9 (“ [A]n un co ns ti tu ti on al go ve rn m en t po li cy co ul d be in ferr ed fro m a si ng le de ci si on ta ke n by th e hi gh es t of fic ia ls res po ns ib le fo r se tt in g po li cy in th at area of th e go ve rn m en t’s bu si ne ss .” (q uo ti ng Pra pr ot ni k
, 48 5 U.S. at 12 3) ). Howev er, th is

arg um en t su ffer s fro m th e sa m e ev id e n t i a r y in fir m it y as Brewi ng to n’s pr io r

co nt en ti on

. Oth er th an Dep ut y Keen er’s he ars ay te st im on y t h a t a hi gh er-r an ke d of fic er to ld h i m of an ex ces si ve fo rce cu st om , Brewi ng to n of fers no ev id en ce th at Sh eri ff Je ff

er y ev er ins tit

ute d the cu st om or pr act ic e. Brewi ng to n’s ev id en ce th eref or e fai le d to de m on st rat e th e ex is te nc e of an un of fic ia l ex ces si ve fo rce cu st om or pr act ic e

-8

-th at ha s th e effe ct or fo rce of la w in th e Co un ty. Fi na ll y , ev en as su m in g th e ex is te nc e

of an un co ns ti tu ti on al cu st om , Brewi ng to n can no t sh ow th at th e po li cy was th e

“ m ov in g fo rce” be hi nd Dep ut y Keen er ’s c o n du ct

. Dep ut y Keen er was as ke d in hi s de po si ti on , “ Si tt in g h ere to da y , d o y ou kn ow wh y y ou ki ck ed Jo sh ? ” J.A. at 76 . He

an swe red
, “ Oth er th an jus t be in g an gr y , no .” Id

. Brewi ng to n’s an ge r—n ot an y co un ty
po li cy or d ire ct iv e—wa s t he m ov in g fo rce f or hi s co nd uc t.

In su m , Brewi ng to n fai le d to pr ov e th e ex is te nc e of an un co ns ti tu ti on al cu st om

or po li cy

. He al so fai le d to sh ow cau sa ti on as su m in g th ere was su ch a c u s t o m or
po li cy

. Brewi ng to n th eref or e can no t es ta bl is h m

un ic ip al li ab i l i t y. Se e Co rw in , 82 9
F.3 d at 70 0. The di st ric t co ur t co rrec tl y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of Sh eri ff
Je ffer y an d Dep ut y

Keen er i n t he ir o ffi ci al cap aci ti es

.

B. Qua li fi ed Immun it y Brewi ng to n al so arg ue s on ap pe al th at th e di st ric t co ur t e r r on eo us ly gr an te d

qu al ifi ed im m

un it y to S h eri ff Je ffer y

. He co nt en ds Sh eri ff Je ffer y fai le d to tra in Dep ut y Keen er ad eq ua te ly. Thi s ar gu m en t l ack s m eri t, an d we a ffi rm

. 4

“ Sh eri ff [J effe ry ] m ay be li ab le un de r § 19 83 if he (1 ) ha d ‘not ic e 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 ‘suf fic ie nt rem ed ia l act io n’; (4 ) pr ox im at el y cau si ng in jury to [Bre win g t o n ]. ” Li ver s v. Sc he nc k
, 70 0 F.3 d 34 0,
35 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng And re ws , 98 F.3 d at 10 78 ). Ult im at el y , Brewi ng to n m us t
pr ov e th at Sh e r i f

f Je ffer y “ ha d no ti ce th at th e tra in in g pr oc ed ur es an d su pe rv is io n

Brewi ng to n al so al le ge d th at Sh eri ff Je ffe ry fai le d to su pe rv is e Dep ut y Keen er 4 in hi s co m

pl ai nt , bu t he ap p e a r s to ab an do n th is cl ai m on ap pe al

. Se e Jen ki ns v. W in te r , 54 0 F.3 d 74 2, 75 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ Cl ai m s no t rai se d in an op en in g br ie f are de em ed waiv ed .” (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) ).

-9

-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.” Id

. at 35 6 (q uo ti ng

And re ws , 98 F.3d at 1 07 8)

.

Brewi ng to n sa y s th at Sh eri ff Je ffer y ’s fai lu re to tra in is read il y ap pa ren t fro m th e pu rp or te d po li cy of “ be at [in g] pe op le up ,” se e App el la nt ’s Br. at 39
, an d fro m th e
ot he r of fic ers ’ fai lu re to in te rv en e whe n Dep ut y Keen er ki ck ed Brewi ng to n. He do es

n o t al le ge an y ot he r in ci de nt s of m is co nd uc t by Dep ut y Keen er. W e ha ve al r e a d y di sc us se d Brewi ng to n’s fai l u r e t o s ho w an un co ns ti tu ti on al po li cy or cu st om

. Se e

su pr a Part II.A. Und er ou r pr eced en t, a si ng le in ci de nt can no t se rv e as no ti ce fo r a
pa tt e r n o f mi s co nd uc t. Se e How ar d v. Adk is on , 88 7 F.2 d 13 4, 13 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 89 ) (h ol di ng th at a si ng le in ci de nt , or a se rie s of is ol at ed in ci de nt s, is us ua ll y in su ffi ci en t
to in fer a pa tt ern ). On th is reco rd
, Brewi ng to n fai le d to sh ow fai lu re to tra in
, an d Sh eri ff J effe ry

is en ti tl ed to qu al ifi ed im m un it y

.

C. Ca us at io n S ta nd

ar d f or Co mpe ns at or

y Dama ge s Brewi ng to n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ap pl ie d an in co rr e c t cau sa ti on
st an da rd to cal cu la te Brewi ng to n’s de nt al da m ag es st em m in g fro m Dep ut y Keen er’s
ki ck to hi s face

. W e di sa gr ee an d fin d no ab us e of di sc ret io n. Se e St even s v. McHa n , 3 F .3d 12 04 , 12 07 (8t h C ir. 1 99 3) (st an da rd of r ev ie w for § 1 98 3 d am ag es award ).

As we ex pl ai ne d:

In or de r to es ta bl is h a vi ol at io n of co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s un de r § 19 83
, th e pl ai nt iff m

us t pr ov e th at th e de fen da nt ’s un co ns ti tu ti on al act io n was th e

“ cau se in fact ” o f th e p la in ti ff’s inju ry

. Ca re y v. Pip hu s , 43 5 U.S. 24 7, 26 3, 98 S. Ct

. 10 42
, 10 52
, 55 L. Ed. 2d 25 2 (1 97 8) ; Co wa ns v. W yr ic k
, 86 2 F.2 d 69 7, 70 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 88 ) (Mc Mi ll ia n, J., co nc ur rin g)

. Co nd uc t is th e ca u s e i n fact of a pa rti cu la r res ul t if th e res ul t wou ld no t ha ve

oc cu rred bu t fo r th e c o n d uc t

. Si m il arl y , if th e res ul t wou ld ha ve

oc cu rred wit ho ut th e co nd uc t co m pl ai ne d of

, su ch co nd uc t can no t be a

cau se in fact of th at pa rti cu la r res ul t. Ca re y , 43 5 U.S. at 26 3, 9 8 S . C t.

-1 0-at 10 52 ; se e W

. Pag e Keet on , Pro ss er an d Kee to n on th e La w of To rt s , § 4 1, at 26 4 (5 th Ed. 1 98 4)

.

But le r v. Dow d
, 97 9 F.2 d 66 1, 66 9– 70 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ) (em ph as is ad de d)

. Co nt rary to Brewi ng to n’s as se rti on , Ark an sa s co ur ts al so ap pl y th e bu t-f or st an da rd of cau sa ti on :

Pro xi m at e cau se is th at w h i c h in a na tu ral an d co nt in uo us se qu en ce,

un br ok en by an y eff

ic ie nt in te rv en in g cau se , pr od uc es th e in jury an d wit ho ut whi ch th e res ul t wou ld no t ha ve oc cu rred

. W al -Ma rt St or es , In c.

v. Ki lg or e , 8 5 Ark . App . 23 1, 1 48 S.W .3d 75 4 (2 00 4) . Th is tra di ti on al
to rt st an da rd req ui res pr oo f th at “ bu t fo r” th e to rtf eas or ’s ne gl ig en ce, th e pl ai n t i ff’s in

jury or de at h wou ld no t ha ve oc cu rred

. Dod d v. Sp ar ks Reg ’l Me d. Ct r. , 90 Ark. Ap p. 1 91 , 20 4 S .W .3d 57 9 (2 00 5)

.

Th oma s v. Mea do rs , 52 7 S.W .3d 72 4, 73 1 (Ark

. Ct

. App

. 20 17 ). W hi le a m ed ic al

ex pe rt ne ed no t in vo ke a se t of “ m ag ic wor ds ,” he ne ve rth el es s m us t art ic ul at e bu t-f

or

cau sa ti on , “ to be jud ge d up on th e en ti ret y of th e op in io n.” W al -Ma rt St or es , In c. , 14 8
S.W .3d at 7 59 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

At th e be nc h tri al
, Brewi ng to n de sc rib ed Dep ut y Keen er’s ki ck as a “ fie ld -g oa l
ki ck []” to hi s face

. Tran sc rip t of Ben ch Tria l at 19
, Brew in gt on v. Kee ne r , No. 1: 15

-

cv -0 00 88 -J M (E.D. Ark

. Ja n. 23
, 20 17 ), ECF No. 45

. The ki ck im m ed ia te ly kn oc ke d

ou t two of Brewi ng to n’s te et h. Brewi ng to n’s de nt al ex pe rt te st ifi ed th at Brewi ng to n

“ ha d a l ot of [p rev io us ] de nt al wor k do ne , ro ot can al s an d cro wns an d fil li ng s an d

ex tra ct io ns .” Id

. at 28

. At th e ti m e th e e x p e r t e xa m in ed Brewi ng to n— m or e th an a
y ear an d a ha lf aft er th e in ci de nt wit h Dep ut y Keen er— Brewi ng to n ha d lo st se ve n
te et h. He al so ha d ab sc es se s on el ev en te et h. The de nt is t co nc lu de d th at Brewi ng to n

“ pr ob ab ly ha d so m e th in gs th at ne ed ed to be do n e as a res ul t of th e acci de nt or th e in ci de nt ,” bu t al so “ pr ob ab ly wou ld ha ve ha d to ha ve so m et hi ng do ne to cat ch up wit h wha t he ha d do ne be fo re.” Id

. at 30

. He op in ed th at Brewi ng to n ne ed ed a fu ll se t of pe rm an en t den ta l im

pl an ts , be cau se a “ pa rti al de nt ur e req ui res tee th to su pp or t it

-1 1-an d he ha s no te et h to su pp or t a pa rti al de nt ur e, no te et h in th e r e t ha t are st ro ng

en ou gh or co ul d be m ad e st ro ng en ou gh to ta ke care of it fo r an y pe rio d of ti m e.” Id

. at 31

. Bu t, th e ex pe rt al so co nc lu de d th at Brewi ng to n “ ha s [s om e] so li d te et h in [h is

m ou th ] no w.” Id

. at 36

. At th e en d of th e tri al
, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d th at it di d

no t

feel th at [it ha d] su ffi ci en t evi de nc e to award [th e da m ag es am ou nt for th e fu ll im

pl an ts ] be cau se th e do ct or di dn ’t te st ify th at bu t fo r th e act io ns of Mr. Keene r th at Mr. Brewin gt on wou ld no t hav e ne ed ed th e de nt ur es al to ge th er. He ha d a co m pl ex de nt al si tu at io n or hi st or y an d [th e co ur t] di dn ’t he ar an y th in g fro m th e do ct or th at sa id bu t fo r Keen er’s act io ns , he wo ul d h av e n eed ed th os e.

Id

. at 4 2.

Brewi ng to n ch al le ng es th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on , ar g ui ng th at he is an
eg gs h e l l p l a in ti ff who se pr io r de te rio rat ed te et h be cam e ex acer ba te d by Dep ut y 5
Keen er’s ki ck
, req ui rin g a fu l l se t of res to rat iv e im pl an ts

. Brewi ng to n’s ex pe rt’s

op in io n be li es th is co nt en ti on

. The de nt is t te st ifi ed t h a t Brewi ng to n st il l ha d so li d

te et h aft er th e in ci de nt an d th at he ha d su st ai ne d da m ag e to m ul ti pl e te et h, bu t no t al l. The eg g- sh el l pl ai nt iff ru le is in ap pl ic ab le he re; Dep ut y Keen er’s ki ck di d no t
pr ox im al ly cau se da m ag e to al l of Brewi ng to n’s te et h

. Th u s , th e di st ric t co ur t

co rrec tl y co nc lu de d th at Dep ut y Keen er’s ki ck was no t th e bu t-f o r c a u s e fo r al l of Brewi ng to n’s d en ta l i nju rie s, an d we f in d n o a bu se of d is cret io n.

“ [T]he ‘egg -s he ll pl ai nt iff ’ ru le

. . . in ess en ce [s ta te s t ha t] a de fen da nt tak es 5

a pl ai nt iff as h e fin ds [h im ]. ” Free man v. Bus ch , 3 49 F.3 d 58 2, 59 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.
-1 2-D. Att or ne ys ’ Fees Ca lc ul at io n Brewi ng to n al so co nt es ts th e di st ric t co u r t ’s red uc ti on of hi s req ue st ed

at to rn ey s’ fees . “ Att or ne y ’s fees are wi th in th e b ro ad di sc ret io n of the di st ric t cou rt

an d wil l no t be rev ers ed ab se nt an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Han ig v. Lee
, 41 5 F.3 d 82 2,
82 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci ti ng Har mon v. Ci ty of Ka n. Ci ty , 19 7 F.3 d 32 1, 32 9 (8 th Ci r. 19 99 )).

To cal cu la te at to rn ey s’ fees
, co ur ts typic al ly be gi n by us in g th e l o d e s t ar

m et ho d. Thi s m et ho d “ ‘m ul ti pl [ie s] th e nu m

be r of ho ur s reas on ab ly ex pe nd ed by th e

reas on ab le ho ur ly rat es .’ Whe n de te rm in in g reas on ab le ho ur ly rat es , di st ric t co ur ts

m ay rel y on th ei r own ex pe rie nc e an d kn owl ed ge of pr ev ai li ng m ark et rat es .” Id

. (fi rs t
qu ot in g Fis h v. St

. Cl ou d St at e Uni v. , 29 5 F.3 d 84 9, 85 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 02 ), th en ci ti ng W ar no ck v. Arch er , 39 7 F.3d 10 24 , 10 27 (8t h C ir. 2 00 4) ). “ The re i s n o p reci se rul e

or fo rm ul a fo r m ak in g th es e de te rm in at io ns

. The di st ric t co ur t m ay at te m pt to id en ti fy

sp eci fic ho ur s th at sh ou ld be el im in at ed
, or it m ay si m pl y red uc e th e award to acco un t fo r

. . . li m it ed su c c e s s

. ” Hen sl ey v. Ecker ha rt , 46 1 U.S. 42 4, 43 6– 37 (1 98 3)

. The

co ur t m us t “ pr ov id e a co nc is e bu t cl ear ex pl an at io n of it s reas on s fo r th e fee award .” Id

. at 4 37

.

H e r e , th e di st ric t co ur t red uc ed Brewi ng to n’s req ue st ed at to rn ey s’ fees fro m $4 1,9 20 to $1 6,5 00
, ci ti ng du pl ic at iv e wor k. The co ur t st at ed th at i t a ls o

“ co n s i d er[e d] th e res ul ts ob ta in ed by [Bre win gt on ’s] co un se l in de te rm in in g th e

reas on ab le ne ss of th e fee award

. ” O r d e r at 2, Brew in gt on v. Kee ne r , No. 1: 15 -cv

00 08 8- JM (E.D. Ark

. Feb

. 22
, 20 17 ), ECF No. 42

. Brewi ng to n’s at to rn ey s co nc ed ed

to so m e am ou nt of du pl ic at iv e wor k, se e App el la nt ’s Br. at 56 –5 7, bu t arg ue th at th e red uc ti on is di sp ro po rti on at e wit h t he id en ti fia bl e d up li cat io n o f wor k.

W e ha ve rev i e w e d in de pt h Brewi ng to n’s su pp or ti ng do cu m en ta ti on

. One

at to rn ey ch arg e d $1 7,0 00 —4 0.6 pe rcen t of th e req ue st ed to ta l— fo r e-m ai ls al on e. Thi s am ou nt is qu es ti on ab le

. Add it io na ll y , Brewi ng to n co nc ed es to so m e du pl ic at io n

-1 3-of wor k. Giv en th e li m it ed su cces s i n th is cas e, we fin d th at a si gn ifi can t red uc ti on

in at to rn ey s’ fees is ap pr op ria te

. Se e Hen sl ey , 46 1 U.S. at 43 6 (“ If

. . . a pl ai nt iff ha s ach ie ve d on l y p a r t i al or li m it ed su cces s, th e pr od uc t of ho ur s reas on ab ly ex pe nd ed

on th e l i t i g a t i o n as a who le ti m es a reas on ab le ho ur ly rat e m ay be an ex ces si ve

am ou nt

. Thi s wil l be tru e ev en whe re th e pl a i n t i ff’s cl ai m s were in te rrel at ed
,
no nf riv ol ou s, an d ra is ed in go od fai th .”).

III. Co nc lu si on W e fin d th e ul ti m at e am ou nt de te rm in ed by th e di st ric t co ur t to be reas on ab le

. W e aff irm.

__

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-1 4-