Opinion ID: 172061
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sheriff Beggs and the County

Text: Martinez contends that Beggs and the county should be held liable for Ginn's death because: (1) county policies and customs showed a deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of intoxicated detainees, and (2) Beggs failed to adequately train and supervise officers regarding how to handle intoxicated detainees. [9] Martinez asserts her claims against Beggs in both his individual capacity and his official capacity, Aplt. Br. at 19, but she does not argue that Beggs should be liable for any actions he took on May 2, 2006. [10] Rather, Martinez contends Beggs should be held liable for the actions of the officers he trained and supervised. To the extent Martinez brings a claim against Beggs in his official capacity, it is the same as bringing a suit against the county. See, e.g., Myers v. Okla. County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 151 F.3d 1313, 1316 n. 2 (10th Cir.1998). A county or sheriff in his official capacity cannot be held liable for constitutional violations when there was no underlying constitutional violation by any of its officers. Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall, 312 F.3d 1304, 1317-18 (10th Cir.2002) (internal quotations marks and brackets omitted). [E]ven if, as Martinez argues, the policies, training, and supervision [of the individual county defendants] were unconstitutional, the [county] cannot be held liable where, as here, the officers did not commit a constitutional violation. Trigalet v. City of Tulsa, 239 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (10th Cir.2001); see also City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986) (If a person has suffered no constitutional injury at the hands of the individual police officer, the fact that the departmental regulations might have authorized the use of constitutionally excessive force is quite beside the point.). Likewise, Beggs cannot be held liable in his individual capacity for implementing county policies or for the actions of county officers under a theory of supervisory liability, when there was no violation of Ginn's constitutional rights. See Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1162 (10th Cir.2008) (explaining that supervisory liability requires a constitutional deprivation affirmatively linked to the supervisor's personal participation). As we have concluded that the individual county defendants (Kirkland, Edwards, Brandon, and Epps) did not violate Ginn's constitutional rights, Beggs and the county cannot be held liable as a matter of law.