Opinion ID: 2829949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: smith’s appeal

Text: Cherry started working as a drug-court compliance officer on July 25, 2012. His prior experience included seven months as a volunteer reserve police officer for the City of Wewoka, Oklahoma, and two years as a corrections officer in Oklahoma. The Oklahoma Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training (“CLEET”) had no record that Cherry had received any formal law-enforcement training. Tammy Wall, Cherry’s supervisor as Seminole County Special Programs Administrator, testified that she has no formal law-enforcement training and has never worked in law enforcement. She is not qualified to train officers on law-enforcement duties, and neither she nor her agency provide such training to drug-court compliance officers. Wall left it to Smith to ensure that the deputy sheriffs who worked as drug-court compliance officers were trained. Smith, however, did not check to see what training Cherry had before he commissioned him, and left it to Wall to train and supervise Cherry, despite knowing that Wall was not CLEET-certified and had no law-enforcement training or expertise. Smith commissioned Cherry two days before Cherry began work as a compliance officer. In district court it was disputed whether Smith or Wall was Cherry’s employer, but the court determined that Smith was the employer and Smith acknowledges that this 11 status is settled for purposes of this appeal. (To deny summary judgment the court needed to determine only that there was substantial evidence that Smith was the employer.)
Plaintiff’s theory of individual liability against Smith is that Smith knew Cherry would be required to serve warrants and make arrests; Smith had a duty to train and supervise Cherry because of the foreseeable risk that Cherry would violate the constitutional rights of citizens absent adequate training and supervision; despite this, Smith failed to provide any training or supervision to Cherry; Smith was deliberately indifferent to the risk to the public from his failure to train or supervise Cherry; Cherry violated Aaron’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights; Smith’s failure to train or supervise Cherry foreseeably caused Cherry to violate Aaron’s constitutional rights; and at the time of the shooting the law was clearly established that Smith had a duty to train and supervise Cherry and would be liable to a victim of Cherry’s unconstitutional acts in these circumstances. See generally Wilson v. Montano, 715 F.3d 847, 856–58 (10th Cir. 2013) (stating requirements for supervisory liability under § 1983), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 426 (2013); Poolaw v. Marcantel, 565 F.3d 721, 732–33 (10th Cir. 2009) (same). Smith moved for summary judgment in the district court, raising the defense that he was entitled to qualified immunity. The court denied the motion. Smith challenges the denial of his motion on several grounds. First, he argues that we should reverse because the district court failed to rule on his qualified-immunity 12 defense and because Plaintiff failed to respond to his qualified-immunity argument below. We disagree. The district court denied the motion. That is the only prerequisite for us to review a legal challenge to the denial. If the district court failed to address an issue, we can still reverse on that ground if the issue was preserved and is meritorious. See Sac & Fox Nation v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1250, 1264‒67 (10th Cir. 2001) (appellate court reverses on a question of law not reached by the district court); Lowe v. Town of Fairland, 143 F.3d 1378, 1380 (10th Cir. 1998) (reviewing appeal from denial of motion for qualified immunity despite district court’s failure to address the issue). Likewise, any failure by Plaintiff to respond to Smith’s summary-judgment motion is irrelevant in light of the district court’s denial of the motion. To be sure, if the court had granted the motion, Plaintiff would be significantly restricted on any appeal because all arguments not made in the district court would have been forfeited. See Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128, 1130‒31 (10th Cir. 2011). But as appellee, Plaintiff can raise arguments for affirmance supported by the record. See id. at 1130. The important procedural failure in this case is not Plaintiff’s or the district court’s but Smith’s. His motion for summary judgment did not raise any ground on which we can reverse. The argument section of the motion devotes four pages to Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim against him in his individual capacity. It notes, correctly, that because he was not personally involved in the August 25, 2012 incident until after the shooting, his liability could only be as a supervisor. Next it summarizes his view of the law of supervisory liability and argues that he is not liable under that law because (1) Cherry did not violate 13 the Constitution and (2) even if he did, “Cherry was not an employee or officer of Sheriff Smith.” Aplt. App. (Smith), Vol. 1 at 255. It then summarizes his view of the law of qualified immunity but concludes that “[t]he second stage of qualified immunity analysis, whether a right was ‘clearly established’ need not even be performed, as Defendant Smith did not personally violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in any way whatsoever.” Id. at 256‒57 (footnote omitted). Smith raised no argument below that he would be entitled to qualified immunity even if Cherry was his employee. Yet given his concession that he cannot challenge on appeal the district court’s determination that Cherry was his employee, this foregone argument would be his only path to reversal. Because he does not argue on appeal that the district court committed plain error, we do not address that possibility. See Richison, 634 F.3d at 1130‒31. We affirm the denial of qualified immunity.