Opinion ID: 4534911
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Supervision Policy – “Single Incident”

Text: On the other hand, the propriety of the district court’s dismissal of Laura’s alleged “single incident” supervision claim—focusing solely on Jeffrey’s misconduct relative to Laura’s November 9, 2011 false arrest— presents a much closer call. Laura’s second amended complaint alleges: “Everybody at the police department (if not the entire community) knew about [Jeffrey’s] battle with [Laura], and his efforts to conspire to have 13 Case: 18-20723 Document: 00515418348 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 No. 18-20723 [Laura] wrongfully arrested and prosecuted.” More importantly, Laura specifically alleges that, on separate occasions, two MPD officers—Officer Sims and Officer Jonathan Lawrenz—reported Jeffrey’s intentions and efforts (relative to having Laura arrested based on planted illegal drugs) directly to Chief May. In response, rather than personally investigating the reports, or referring them to the Texas Rangers for investigation, Chief May allegedly did nothing to determine their validity. Instead, when Officer Sims purportedly told Chief May, in October 2011, that “he was getting a lot of word from [his] snitches that Jeff is trying to find somebody to plant dope on Laura’s car because of this custody battle,” Chief May only responded: “Well, I don’t believe it. It’s just a bunch of crackheads.” Viewing the allegations of the second amended complaint in Laura’s favor, as we must, Officer Sims’ “snitches” presumably refer to the confidential informants of which Jeffrey allegedly was “in charge,” and from whom the MPD regularly sought to obtain information in aid of their drug investigations. Construed in this manner, Chief May’s deliberate and outright rejection of the possible validity of what the “snitches” were saying— without conducting even a minimal investigation—arguably falls short. This is particularly so given Officer Sims’ experience and credentials—his employment by the MPD since November 2004, and his twenty-six years with the United States Military Police/C.I.D., including active service in Iraq as a military police officer (attached to the Drugs C.I.D.)—and his presumed credibility. Finally, had Chief May chosen to investigate the egregious and unlawful misconduct that his officers reported to him, he also likely would have discovered the “audio and video records of Jeffrey conspiring against Laura” that Jeffrey had saved on the MPD’s computer system. As set forth above, however, asserting an actionable failure to supervise § 1983 municipal liability claim requires allegations establishing a “direct 14 Case: 18-20723 Document: 00515418348 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 No. 18-20723 causal link between the policy and the proclaimed violation.” The policy also must have been implemented by the policymaker with the requisite culpability, i.e., “deliberate indifference” to the “known or obvious consequences” that constitutional violations would result. Regarding causation, the asserted motivations for Jeffrey’s conduct were purely personal. Nevertheless, construing the allegations of the second amended complaint in Laura’s favor, had Chief May investigated the reports of Jeffrey’s “false arrest” plot, a reasonable inference can be drawn— especially given the allegations regarding the number of persons aware of Jeffrey’s plan—that Laura’s arrest, criminal charges, and loss of child custody would have been prevented or at least promptly remedied. Thus, in that sense, the City caused the violation by not timely employing appropriate supervisory measures in order to prevent reasonably anticipated unlawful conduct by a city employee. Similarly, the obvious likely consequence of a municipal supervisor’s refusal to investigate a municipal employee’s scheme—to plant evidence in order to bring about a false arrest and criminal charges—is that the plot works as planned, i.e. the evidence is planted, the false arrest is made, and criminal charges follow. What’s more, the information provided by Officers Sims and Lawrenz is not the only information that Chief May had tending to support the likelihood that Jeffrey was trying to do exactly what the “snitches” said he was doing. Chief May allegedly was personally aware of the ongoing custody disputes between Laura and Jeffrey and their acrimonious history. Furthermore, Chief May had to realize that, if Jeffrey was attempting such a scheme, the likelihood of its success was fairly high. Given Jeffrey’s position as senior narcotics investigator and his involvement with the MPD confidential informants, he presumably had access to illegal drugs and persons willing and able to plant them. And, as evidenced by Jeffrey’s 15 Case: 18-20723 Document: 00515418348 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 No. 18-20723 telephone call to Trooper Clary, which caused Trooper Clary to search Laura’s vehicle for drugs when he otherwise would not, Jeffrey’s law enforcement status at least potentially increased the likelihood that the planted drugs eventually would be discovered by another law enforcement officer and Laura arrested. In short, construing Laura’s allegations in the manner required for Rule 12(b)(6) motions, this close call is one that, at this stage of the proceeding, should have gone in Laura’s favor. Although Laura’s supervision claim ultimately may not withstand a motion for summary judgment filed after discovery, or prevail at trial, neither scenario is determinative of this appeal. Accordingly, we find the district court erred in dismissing Laura’s failure to supervise § 1983 claim with prejudice.