Opinion ID: 6348771
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims against Sanders and Stacy

Text: The plaintiffs allege that Chief Sanders and Mayor Stacy are liable for Faughn’s alleged unconstitutional acts because they had received notice of his behavior and failed to stop it. A supervising officer may be liable for the actions of his subordinates when “he (1) had ‘notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates’; (2) was deliberately indifferent to or tacitly authorized those acts; and (3) failed to take ‘sufficient remedial action’; (4) proximately causing injury to” the plaintiffs. Livers v. Schenck, 700 F.3d 340, 355 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1078 (8th Cir. 1996)). Assuming that Sanders and Stacy knew of the complaints against Faughn, we nonetheless conclude that the plaintiffs have failed to present evidence that either official was deliberately indifferent to them. “[D]eliberate indifference is a subjective standard that ‘entails a level of culpability equal to the criminal law definition of recklessness.’” S.M., 808 F.3d at 341 (quoting B.A.B., Jr. v. Bd. of Educ. of St. Louis, 698 F.3d 1037, 1040 (8th Cir. 2012)). The failure to train or supervise the officer must “reflect[] a deliberate or conscious choice.” B.A.B., Jr., 698 F.3d at 1040 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “To be deliberately indifferent, an ‘official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of [unconstitutional] harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.’” S.M., 808 F.3d at 341 (quoting Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994)) (alteration in original). 3 Hess submitted an affidavit stating that Faughn had patted her on the buttocks during the stop. The complaint did not include this allegation, however, nor did Hess plead any claim based on unconstitutional sexual contact. -8- Sanders understood that a subordinate officer investigated all complaints by watching body camera footage or by interviewing witnesses if footage was unavailable. He received verbal reports of the investigations, and disciplinary action was taken when the complaint was supported by the footage or interviews. He believed, based on the investigations, that the complaints against Faughn were unfounded. There is no evidence in the record that would show that Sanders subjectively believed that Faughn nonetheless posed a substantial risk of unconstitutional harm to others. Similarly, no evidence suggests that Mayor Stacy deliberately disregarded a risk posed by Faughn. He viewed body camera footage relating to at least one complaint against Faughn, but he otherwise referred complaints to Sanders rather than investigating them himself. Because no evidence in the record supports a finding that either Sanders or Stacy subjectively knew of and deliberately disregarded a substantial risk of unconstitutional harms posed by Faughn, we reverse the district court’s denial of summary judgment to them.4 We reverse the district court’s order denying qualified immunity as to O’Hara’s and Hess’s claims against Faughn and as to all plaintiffs’ claims against Sanders and Stacy. We remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Faughn, Sanders, and Stacy on these claims and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. ______________________________ 4 While the plaintiffs’ briefing and complaint alleges that the police department’s policies and customs were insufficient to protect against constitutional violations, no official capacity claims are before us. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Srvs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). -9-