Opinion ID: 169076
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sheriff Shoemaker

Text: “A supervisor is not liable under section 1983 unless an affirmative link exists between the constitutional deprivation and either the supervisor’s personal participation, his exercise of control or direction, or his failure to supervise.” M eade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1527 (10th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Additionally, “[l]iability of a supervisor under § 1983 must be predicated on the supervisor’s deliberate indifference, rather than mere negligence.” Green v. Branson, 108 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1997). Although Sheriff Shoemaker did not personally participate in the events leading up to M r. Belden’s suicide, the magistrate judge ruled that he could be liable for inadequately supervising and training Sergeant Hollister and Officer Roberts. II Aplt. App. at 344-46. On appeal, he argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he was, at most, negligent. Aplt. Br. at 32. W e agree. As the Sheriff of Brown County, Sheriff Shoemaker is ultimately responsible for the operation of the Brown County Jail and the conduct of its employees. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 19-811 (2005). Thus, he is responsible for the policy decision that jailers typically are not even offered a basic corrections class until they have been employed for a year. He is likewise accountable for the fact that Officer Roberts was employed for eighteen months without undergoing any formal training–let alone any suicide prevention training. Furthermore, Sheriff Shoemaker is responsible for leaving 23 inmates in the charge of one jailer for an - 21 - entire eight-hour shift, such that any disturbance would require the jailer to sum mon a road deputy w ho could take an hour or more to respond. Although w e are sensitive to the constraints on budget and manpower faced by a small sheriff’s department, these policies are troubling. Yet, as the sheriff emphasizes, mere negligence is not enough; he must have been deliberately indifferent to the risk of prisoner suicide if he is to be liable under § 1983. Green, 108 F.3d at 1302. Thus, the record must contain evidence from which a jury could infer that Sheriff Shoemaker knew that his policies were insufficient to protect inmates from the risk of suicide. W e have reviewed the record, and we find no such evidence. Sheriff Shoemaker has undergone extensive suicide prevention training by Kanza and other mental health and correctional agencies. See I Aplt. App. at 139-40. During his eight-year tenure, M r. Belden was the first inmate to have taken his ow n life despite more than seventy-five prior suicide attempts. Id. at 140-41. Nothing in the sheriff’s training or experience put him on notice that his policy of notifying Kanza at the first sign that an inmate was considering harming himself was inadequate. W hile, in hindsight, it is clear that Sheriff Shoemaker could have better trained and supervised his subordinates, there is no evidence that he was deliberately indifferent to the risk of inmate suicide. M oreover, there is no evidence that Officer Roberts would have prevented M r. Belden’s suicide if he had been better trained; after all, Sergeant Hollister underwent several Kanza - 22 - training courses and testified that he did not believe that M r. Belden was a suicide risk. Id. at 106. Accordingly, Sheriff Shoemaker is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity. R EVER SED and R EM A N DED. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr.