Opinion ID: 160106
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Board of County Commissioners

Text: 42 Municipal entities and local governing bodies are not entitled to the traditional common law immunities for section 1983 claims. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 166 (1993). Thus, to establish a claim for damages under section 1983 against the Board, Mr. Whitesel must prove the Board (1) executed a policy or custom, (2) that caused Mr. Whitesel to suffer deprivation of constitutional or federal rights. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 122 (1992); Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986). 43 In his complaint, Mr. Whitesel alleged that the individual pretrial service officers acted pursuant to a policy established by the Board when they issued the discretionary provisions of the TRO prior to a hearing before a judge. However, the parties' subsequent pleadings did not address the question of the existence of a Board policy. In particular, the defendants' motion to dismiss, which the court converted to a motion for summary judgment, did not contest the existence of a policy, but rather stated in conclusory fashion that Mr. Whitesel failed to establish a deprivation of constitutional or federal rights. Mr. Whitesel's submissions were similarly deficient. His response to the motion to dismiss did not address the alleged Board policy, and, after the court converted the motion to one for summary judgment, he did not submit any evidence in support of his claim against the Board. 44 Perhaps because of the parties' failure to discuss the Board's liability, it appears that the district court did not address the matter either. At one point during the hearing, the defendants' attorney expressed confusion over whether both of Mr. Whitesel's separate 1983 claims were being alleged against the Board. Mr. Whitesel's attorney then clarified that his second 1983 claim involving the Human Services employees, discussed infra, was not being alleged against the Board. See Aplt's App. at 163. The parties then moved on to discuss the merits of Mr. Whitesel's second claim. Thus, there was never any discussion during the hearing as to the Board's liability on the first claim--in which he alleged that the Board establish the policy pursuant to which the pretrial service officers had issued the discretionary provisions of the TRO. 45 Immediately after the arguments on Mr. Whitesel's second claim the court made its ruling with respect to the Board: 46 [I]t appears to the Court that if there is any problem with their actions, it involves violation of Colorado law and not federal law and not [the] federal Constitution. . . . I can see nothing that was claimed . . . done by the Board of County Commissioners which would rise to a level of a violation of either the U.S. Constitution or federal law. And therefore it appears that that entity as a defendant should be dismissed. 47 Aplt's App. at 180-81. In its order granting judgment in favor of all defendants, the court incorporated these oral conclusions. The court appears to have addressed the Board's liability as to Mr. Whitesel's second claim (involving the action of the Human Services employees) but failed to specifically address the Board's liability as to his first claim (involving the actions of the pretrial service officers). 48 Although we may affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Board for any reason supported by the record, see Perry v. Woodward, 188 F.3d 1220, 1232 (10th Cir. 1999), the record in this case does not permit us to do so. Mr. Whitesel never offered any evidence in support of his allegation regarding the Board's policy. However, he was never required to do so: the defendants never contested his initial allegation that such a policy existed. Moreover, as noted above, the district court never addressed the question of whether there was such a policy and, if so, whether it violated Mr. Whitesel's due process rights. 49 We also note that Mr. Whitesel's claim against the Board raises an important legal issue. He has alleged that the Board established a policy whereby, prior to a hearing before a judge, pretrial service officers issued the discretionary restraining orders set forth in § 18-1-1001(3) to persons arrested on domestic abuse charges. Although at least one judge in the First Judicial District of Colorado has concluded that failure to provide a pre-issuance hearing renders the discretionary orders invalid under state law, it is a separate and unsettled question whether that practice comports with the due process requirements of the federal constitution. 50 The discretionary restraining orders at issue entail some degree of restraint on liberty and property. For example, one such provision requires the accused to vacate the home of the victim, which, in cases of domestic violence, may be the home of the accused as well. See C.R.S. § 18-1-1001(3)(a). Thus, we know at least some process is due. Exactly what or how much process is due, however, is the pivotal issue. It appears as though courts have had little opportunity to decide this issue or ones analogous to it. See, e.g., United States v. Kirschenbaum, 156 F.3d 784, 792 (7th Cir. 1998) (The more difficult issue is the one left open by the [Supreme] Court: 'whether the Due Process Clause requires a hearing before a pretrial restraining order [restricting property rights] can be imposed.') (quoting United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600, 615 n.10 (1989)); Nollet v. Justices of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 83 F. Supp. 2d 204, 212 (D. Mass. 2000) (stating there is very little case law on the constitutionality of . . . ex parte temporary restraining order procedure[s] that involve petitions by victims of domestic abuse seeking orders requiring the abuser to vacate the home and avoid contact with victim). The issue is a meaningful one that merits substantive and focused briefing by the parties beyond what has been provided, and warrants consideration by the district court prior to our review. 51 However, to succeed on his claim against the Board, we reiterate that Mr. Whitesel must first prove that the pretrial service officers were acting pursuant to a policy created by the Board. We have already concluded the record establishes that the pretrial service officers were acting pursuant to a policy formulated by the judges of the First Judicial District of Colorado. At this point it is not clear that the policy of the state judiciary included authorizing the pretrial service officers to issue the discretionary restraining orders prior to a hearing before a judge. However, we note, such instruction might be implied by the fact that the discretionary orders were listed on the judicially approved TRO form. Nevertheless, we emphasize that the Board cannot be liable for merely implementing a policy created by the state judiciary. In order to prevail on his claim against the Board, Mr. Whitesel must demonstrate that the Board was the moving force behind the pretrial services officers issuance of the discretionary orders. See Gates v. Unified School Dist. No. 449 of Leavenworth County, Kan., 996 F.2d 1035, 1041 (10th Cir. 1993). 52 We, therefore, conclude that the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Board on Mr. Whitesel's first claim involving the TRO is not supported by the record. That claim must be remanded to the district court for further development of the parties' factual and legal contentions.