Opinion ID: 1378661
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Individual Capacity Qualified Immunity

Text: In addition to her allegations of official capacity liability, Parrish also alleged that Sheriff Ball was liable in his individual supervisory capacity for his own failure to train and supervise Fite. The district court granted Sheriff Ball summary judgment on this individual capacity claim, finding that he was entitled to qualified immunity. In her cross-appeal, Parrish challenges this finding. We review a district court's qualified immunity determination on summary judgment de novo. Davis v. Hall, 375 F.3d 703, 711 (8th Cir.2004). Pursuant to this standard, we view the summary judgment record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, . . . afford[ing][her] all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that record. Id. And, we will affirm the entry of summary judgment resting on qualified immunity if, viewed through this lense, no genuine issue of material facts exists regarding whether the officials' actions, even if unlawful, were objectively reasonable `in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time [the actions were] taken.' Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1948, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Thus, each Government official, his or her title notwithstanding, is only liable for his or her own misconduct. Id. at 1949. As we have held, a supervising officer can be liable for an inferior officer's constitutional violation only `if he directly participated in the constitutional violation, or if his failure to train or supervise the offending actor caused the deprivation.' [1] Otey v. Marshall, 121 F.3d 1150, 1155 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting Tilson v. Forrest City Police Dep't, 28 F.3d 802, 806 (8th Cir. 1994)); see also Wever v. Lincoln County, 388 F.3d 601, 606-07 (8th Cir.2004). Moreover, a supervising officer will not be individually liable for an otherwise unlawful act if he is entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in their individual capacity so long as the official has not violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). To overcome the defense of qualified immunity the plaintiff must show: (1) the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrate the deprivation of a constitutional or statutory right; and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the deprivation. Howard v. Kansas City Police Dep't, 570 F.3d 984, 988 (8th Cir.2009). Recently, the Supreme Court instructed that we are permitted to exercise [our] sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand. Pearson v. Callahan, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 808, 818, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009). Because Sheriff Ball's actions do not amount to the violation of a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known, the second prong of the analysis is dispositive of this case. We, therefore, address only the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis. Parrish has not alleged that Sheriff Ball ordered, directed, or even suggested that Fite sexually assault Parrish. Thus, Sheriff Ball's alleged liability cannot be based on his direct participation in the constitutional violation. Instead, the cross-appellant avers that Sheriff Ball's liability arises from his alleged failure to supervise and train Fite. For Sheriff Ball to have violated Parrish's constitutional rights by failing to supervise Fite, Parrish must show that Sheriff Ball: 1) Received notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates; 2) Demonstrated deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the offensive acts; 3) Failed to take sufficient remedial action; and 4) That such failure proximately caused injury to [Parrish]. Jane Doe A v. Special Sch. Dist. of St. Louis County, 901 F.2d 642, 645 (8th Cir. 1990); see also Otey, 121 F.3d at 1155 (applying this standard to an allegation that a supervisory officer failed to supervise an inferior officer). The summary judgment record, even when viewed in a light most favorable to Parrish, reveals nothing that suggests that Sheriff Ball received any notice of a pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by any of Sheriff Ball's subordinates. Moreover, pursuant to the parties' stipulation of facts at summary judgment, the parties agreed that Sheriff Ball had no occasion to know that Fite was about to engage in a sexual assault. Thus, a reasonable officer in Sheriff Ball's shoes would not have known that he needed to more closely supervise Fite. Therefore, to the extent that such a failure to supervise may survive Iqbal, Sheriff Ball was, nevertheless, entitled to qualified immunity on such a claim. We have also noted that a supervisor's failure to train an inferior officer may subject the superior to § 1983 liability in his individual capacity, where the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the police come into contact. Otey, 121 F.3d at 1156 (quotation omitted). The plaintiff must also prove that the alleged failure to train actually caused the constitutional deprivation. Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1078 (applying the same standard from official capacity failure to train to the individual capacity allegation). Thus, it follows that a supervisory officer is entitled to qualified immunity for a § 1983 failure to train action unless a reasonable supervisor would have known that his training program (or lack thereof) was likely to result in the specific constitutional violation at issue. See Gold v. City of Miami, 121 F.3d 1442, 1447 (11th Cir.1997) (noting that a supervisor is entitled to qualified immunity unless a reasonable person in the supervisor's position would have known that his conduct infringed the constitutional rights of the plaintiff and his conduct was causally related to the constitutional violation committed by his subordinate (quotation omitted)). As we noted in our analysis above, we find that there is no patently obvious need to train officers not to sexually assault women, nor is there a patently obvious need to train officers that if they sexually assault a woman, they may be charged with a felony. Moreover, a reasonable supervisor in Sheriff Ball's position would not know that a failure to specifically train Fite not to sexually assault a woman would cause Fite to engage in that very behavior. Thus, the district court correctly found that Sheriff Ball is entitled to qualified immunity in his individual capacity.