Opinion ID: 558769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of Sheriff and Chief of Police under Section 1983

Text: 11 Plaintiff did not make any allegation or present any evidence indicating that the sheriff or the chief of police were directly involved in injuring decedent. Rather, plaintiff's position is that these defendants are liable as supervisors because they acquiesced in actions that resulted in decedent's injury. The district court, in granting summary judgment in favor of the sheriff and the chief of police, concluded that plaintiff failed to establish any basis for supervisory liability. 12 This court has addressed the limits of supervisory liability under section 1983 on a number of occasions. Under the law of this circuit, [a] supervisor is not liable under section 1983 unless an 'affirmative link' exists between the [constitutional] deprivation and either the supervisor's 'personal participation, his exercise of control or direction, or his failure to supervise.'  Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1527 (10th Cir.1988) (quoting Specht v. Jensen, 832 F.2d 1516, 1524 (10th Cir.1987), reh'g en banc granted on other grounds, and judgment, but not opinion, vacated, 837 F.2d 940 (1988)); see also Snell v. Tunnell, 920 F.2d 673, 700 (10th Cir.1990); D.T. by M.T. v. Independent School Dist. No. 16, 894 F.2d 1176, 1187 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 213 (1990). To be liable, a supervisor must have participated or acquiesced in the constitutional deprivations of which the complaint is made. Kite v. Kelley, 546 F.2d 334, 337 (10th Cir.1976). Thus, this court has held that a sheriff responsible under state law for the proper management of the jail in his county is accountable in a Sec. 1983 action whenever ... [he] knew or should have known of the misconduct, and yet failed to prevent future harm. Anthony v. Baker, 767 F.2d 657, 666 (10th Cir.1985). 13 In this case, plaintiff argues that the sheriff and the chief of police each had responsibility for the administration of the city-county jail and each had knowledge of and acquiesced in the moving of decedent to the second floor cell block. It is significant that plaintiff's claim against the sheriff and the chief of police is being assessed in the context of a summary judgment. Under these circumstances, the question is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on her claim. Rather, the inquiry is whether plaintiff presented sufficient evidence which, if believed, could support an inference that the sheriff or the chief of police knew of and acquiesced in the manner in which decedent was incarcerated in the city-county jail. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment ... against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case....). Plaintiff's evidence must have been such that a reasonable jury could have returned a verdict for her. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). 14 Plaintiff, however, as the district court held, merely makes the conclusory allegation that the sheriff and the chief of police were aware of the manner in which decedent was incarcerated. Plaintiff has not pointed to any specific evidence that indicates that the sheriff and the chief of police acquiesced in or knew of or should have known of the conditions under which decedent was held in the city-county jail. In the absence of such evidence, plaintiff's claim against the sheriff and the chief of police as supervisors can only be characterized as rooted in speculation. This is insufficient for plaintiff to overcome summary judgment in favor of the sheriff and the chief of police. Conaway v. Smith, 853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir.1988) (to defeat summary judgment, a party cannot rest on ... speculation, or on suspicion).