Opinion ID: 526161
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Official-capacity.

Text: 95 In Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985), the Court stated that where the complaint does not clearly specify whether officials are sued personally or in their official capacity, courts must look to the course of proceedings to determine the type of liability sought to be imposed. Id. at 167 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3106 n. 14 (quoting Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464, 465, 105 S.Ct. 873, 874, 83 L.Ed.2d 878 (1985)). This is one of those cases where ambiguous pleadings have required this court to closely examine the course of proceedings in order to determine the basis on which this suit was brought and litigated. 29 We conclude that while the action was brought against the individual defendants primarily for their actions in an official capacity, possible personal liability was also contemplated by all the parties at the time of trial. 30 Consequently, we reject defendants' claim of no personal liability on the basis that this was solely an official-capacity suit. 31 96 We find support for our conclusion from the record of the proceedings at the time the jury was receiving its instructions. Initially the court instructed the jury that [u]nder the pleadings and the facts in this case, you must find against Oklahoma City anytime you find against any one of the individuals, because they were acting for the City, except punitive damages. Record, vol. 14, Transcript of Proceedings, at 994. The court characterized this instruction as one resulting from a stipulation by the parties. Id. at 997. However, defendants' counsel, who was representing both the City and the individual defendants, objected to the court's representation. In response to counsel's objection the court corrected its instruction, telling the jury to judge Oklahoma City just like you would the individuals, whether it's liable or not liable, on that claim. Id. at 998. Counsel's objection effectively disavowed the City's automatic liability if the jury found against the individual defendants--the expected outcome if this were solely an official-capacity suit. Counsel's action can only be explained on the basis that he was proceeding under an assumption that the case also involved issues of personal capacity. 32 97