Spurlock v. Wagner , 661 F. App'x 536 ( 2016 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
TENTH CIRCUIT September 12, 2016
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
HEATHER SPURLOCK; SOPHIA
CARRASCO; NINA CARRERA,
Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-
Appellees,
v. Nos. 12-2094; 12-2101;
12-2168; 12-2210
ANTHONY TOWNES, in his (D.C. No. 1:09-CV-00786-WJ-SMV)
individual capacity; BARBARA (D.N.M.)
WAGNER, in her individual capacity;
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA,
Defendants-Appellees/Cross-
Appellants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TYMKOVICH, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Heather Spurlock, Sophia Carrasco, and Nina Carrera (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) sued Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) and Warden
Barbara Wagner (collectively, “Defendants”), as well as Officer Anthony
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.
Townes, 1 after they were sexually assaulted by Officer Townes at a private
detention center operated by CCA. They alleged violations of the Eighth
Amendment, through the vehicle of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and also of New Mexico
tort law. The case was eventually tried before a jury. The jury found for
Plaintiffs on some claims and Defendants on others, and awarded damages
accordingly. These appeals and cross-appeals ensued, and raised five issues: (1)
whether Defendants must pay the judgment against Officer Townes under N.M.
Stat. Ann. § 33-1-17; (2) whether the special verdict form properly allowed for
Plaintiffs’ comparative fault to be assessed; (3) whether the jury instructions
impermissibly limited Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claim to a single theory of
liability; (4) whether the district court erred in awarding costs to Plaintiff Carrera
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d); and (5) whether Defendants are
liable to pay the attorneys’ fees Plaintiffs were awarded against Officer Townes
and whether the district court’s calculation of those fees was in error.
In order to resolve the second issue, involving comparative fault, we
certified to the New Mexico Supreme Court (“NMSC”) the question of whether
New Mexico recognizes the affirmative defense of comparative fault on
negligent-supervision claims. In response, the NMSC issued a decision
recognizing a new theory of vicarious liability (for which it rejected the use of
1
Although there are technically three defendants—Officer Townes,
Barbara Wagner, and CCA—Officer Townes elected not to participate in this
appeal. Accordingly, references to “Defendants” include only Ms. Wagner and
CCA; Officer Townes is referred to as “Officer Townes.”
2
comparative-fault principles). It applied that theory to Plaintiffs’ vicarious-
liability claim—which had been dismissed on summary judgment—and concluded
that Defendants CCA and Ms. Wagner should be held liable for all compensatory
damages resulting from Officer Townes’s tortious conduct. Because the NMSC
held that full compensatory damages should be awarded to all Plaintiffs under the
vicarious-liability claim, and because New Mexico law ordinarily prohibits
double recovery of compensatory damages, the NMSC declined to resolve the
issue of comparative fault with respect to Plaintiffs’ negligent-supervision claim.
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. And, with the
NMSC’s rulings in mind, we affirm in part, vacate in part, reverse in part, and
remand for further proceedings.
I
In 2007, Officer Townes sexually assaulted all three Plaintiffs while they
were inmates at the Camino Nuevo Correction Center (“Camino”)—a New
Mexico all-female prison privately operated under contract by CCA—where
Officer Townes was employed as a prison guard. Plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, alleging violations of, inter alia, the Eighth Amendment and also sought
relief under New Mexico state law. 2
2
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff . . . must show that the
alleged [constitutional] deprivation was committed by a person acting under color
of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); accord Yanaki v. Iomed,
Inc., 415 F.3d 1204, 1207 (10th Cir. 2005); Gallagher v. Neil Young Freedom
Concert, 49 F.3d 1442, 1447 (10th Cir. 1995). Neither the district court nor the
parties question the proposition that, during the events material here, CCA—a
3
Before trial, the district court issued several rulings pertinent to this
appeal. The court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on the issue of
liability as to the Eighth Amendment § 1983 claim against Officer Townes.
However, it refused to hold Defendant CCA strictly liable under a respondeat
superior theory for the constitutional harms caused by Officer Townes; it
reasoned in part that N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-1-17 does not make private prison-
private company operating Camino under contract with the State of New
Mexico—and its employees, Defendant Wagner and Officer Townes, were acting
under color of state law and, thus, subject to suit under § 1983. Guided by
Supreme Court and persuasive circuit court authority, we have no reason to
question this collective judgment. See West, 487 U.S. at 54 (“Respondent, as a
physician employed by North Carolina to provide medical services to state prison
inmates, acted under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when undertaking
his duties in treating petitioner’s injury. Such conduct is fairly attributable to the
State.”); id. at 55–56 (“The fact that the State employed respondent pursuant to a
contractual arrangement that did not generate the same benefits or obligations
applicable to other ‘state employees’ does not alter the analysis. It is the
physician’s function within the state system, not the precise terms of his
employment, that determines whether his actions can fairly be attributed to the
State.”); see Rosborough v. Mgmt. & Training Corp., 350 F.3d 459, 461 (5th Cir.
2003) (per curiam) (ruling as to a “private prison-management corporation”
operating a prison on the State of Texas’s behalf that such entities “and their
employees may be sued under § 1983 by a prisoner who has suffered a
constitutional injury. Clearly, confinement of wrongdoers—though sometimes
delegated to private entities—is a fundamentally governmental function”);
Skelton v. Pri-Cor, Inc., 963 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding as to a
private corporation operating a detention center under contract with a county that
it “no doubt [is] performing a public function traditionally reserved to the state”
and concluding that it “was acting under color of law”); see also Evans v.
Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 299 (1966) (“[W]hen private individuals or groups are
endowed by the State with powers or functions governmental in nature, they
become agencies or instrumentalities of the State and subject to its constitutional
limitations.”); Smith v. Cochran, 339 F.3d 1205, 1215–16 (10th Cir. 2003)
(“[P]ersons to whom the state delegates its penological functions, which include
the custody and supervision of prisoners, can be held liable for violations of the
Eighth Amendment.”).
4
management companies like CCA strictly liable for the tortious conduct of their
employees. Further, the court granted summary judgment for Defendants as to all
but two of the claims against them (specifically, as to all but the Eighth
Amendment and negligent-supervision claims). Notably, in this regard, the court
granted Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ state-law vicarious-liability
claim. It explained that Defendants could not be held vicariously liable for
Officer Townes’s intentional torts under a respondeat superior theory because he
was not acting within the course and scope of his employment when he sexually
assaulted Plaintiffs.
The case proceeded to trial: the jury was called on to decide liability
regarding only the two claims against Defendants that survived summary
judgment—i.e., the Eighth Amendment and negligent-supervision claims—and
also the damages to be awarded for the claims for which the court had already
determined that Officer Townes was liable. The jury found for Defendants on the
Eighth Amendment claim, and for Plaintiffs Spurlock and Carrasco—but not for
Plaintiff Carrera—on the negligent-supervision claim.
As to the Eighth Amendment § 1983 claim against Officer Townes, each
Plaintiff was awarded some compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive
damages. In addition, Plaintiffs Spurlock and Carrasco were awarded $51,000
and $130,000, respectively, in compensatory and punitive damages against
Defendants for the negligent-supervision claim.
5
In calculating the damages awards for the negligent-supervision claim, the
jury was instructed by the court as to each Plaintiff on a special verdict form,
which used essentially identical language, to “[s]tate in a percentage how
comparatively negligent Defendants CCA and Barbara Wagner were, and how
comparatively negligent [each Plaintiff] was.” Aplts.’ App. at 1268, 1274
(Special Verdict Form, filed Feb. 16, 2012). The jury found Ms. Spurlock fifty-
four percent comparatively negligent and Ms. Carrasco twenty percent
comparatively negligent, and reduced their compensatory-damages awards
accordingly.
These cross-appeals ensued. Because they presented, inter alia, an
important open question regarding Defendants’ ability to raise a comparative-
fault defense against Plaintiffs under New Mexico law, we requested that the
NMSC exercise its discretion to accept the following certified question of state
law:
When an inmate is sexually assaulted by a corrections officer,
does New Mexico recognize the affirmative defense of
comparative fault—permitting the comparison of the
correctional facility/employer’s alleged negligence with the
alleged fault of the inmate victim—for the purpose of reducing
the amount of a judgment entered on the inmate’s state-law
claim of negligent supervision of the tortfeasor-officer by the
employer?
Order Certifying Question to NMSC (“Certification Order”), at 15 (Dec. 8, 2014).
In our Certification Order, we made clear that “[o]ur phrasing of this question
[was] not intended to limit the New Mexico Supreme Court’s scope of inquiry.
6
Rather, we acknowledge[d] that the court may reformulate our question, and we
invite[d] the court to do so in any way it [found] helpful.” Id. Pending the
NMSC’s resolution of our certified question, we abated the appeal. See id.
On March 14, 2016, the NMSC issued an opinion responding to our
Certification Order. See Spurlock v. Townes, 368 P.3d 1213 (N.M. 2016). In its
opinion, the NMSC “exercise[d] [its] discretion to reformulate the [certified]
question.” Id. at 1216 (citation omitted). It “h[e]ld that under New Mexico law
CCA and Wagner are vicariously liable for all compensatory damages caused by
the corrections-officer employee when he was aided in accomplishing his assaults
by his agency relationship with CCA and Wagner who were his employers[,]” and
“[n]o affirmative defense of comparative fault is available in this context.” Id.
The NMSC explained that under an “aided-in-agency theory” of vicarious
liability, an employer may be held liable for the intentional torts of an
employee—even if the employee was acting outside the scope of his or her
employment—if the employee “was aided in accomplishing the tort by the
existence of the agency relation.” Id. at 1216–17 (quoting Ocana v. Am.
Furniture Co., 91 P.3d 58, 71 (N.M. 2004)). The NMSC established that, “[i]n
order to prevail under an aided-in-agency theory, Plaintiffs had to prove that
Townes was aided in accomplishing his assaults by his status as a corrections
officer that afforded him substantial power and control over Plaintiffs.” Id. at
1217–18. And the court concluded that Plaintiffs did prevail on this theory
because Officer Townes “used the authority vested in him by his position as a
7
corrections officer to coerce Plaintiffs, who were inmates entrusted to his care,
into submitting to sexual assault and false imprisonment.” Id. at 1218.
As a result of this holding, the NMSC concluded: “Because CCA and
Wagner are fully liable for [the compensatory damages] award under vicarious
liability principles regardless of any direct negligence on their part, we do not
reach the claim of negligent supervision nor any theories of comparative fault
that might have been applicable to that theory.” Id. at 1219. The NMSC
explained that it was “declin[ing] to determine the availability of an affirmative
defense alleging Plaintiffs’ comparative fault in a claim of liability for negligent
supervision of an intentional tortfeasor because the vicarious liability of CCA and
Wagner ma[de] th[at] determination unnecessary.” Id. at 1216. In this regard,
the NMSC referred to New Mexico’s prohibition on double recovery and noted its
desire to avoid addressing unnecessary certified issues which could result in it
handing down an advisory opinion. See id.
II
With the NMSC’s answer to our certified question in hand, we now address
all five claims that Plaintiffs previously raised on appeal—as well as a sixth
claim that Plaintiffs raise for the first time on appeal in their post-certification
briefing. Specifically, we address: (1) whether Defendants must pay the
judgment against Officer Townes under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-1-17; (2) whether
the district court’s special verdict form properly allowed for Plaintiffs’
comparative fault to be assessed regarding the negligent-supervision claim; (3)
8
whether the court’s jury instructions impermissibly limited Plaintiffs’ Eighth
Amendment claim to a single theory of liability; (4) whether the court erred in
awarding costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d); and (5) whether
Defendants are liable to pay the attorneys’ fees Plaintiffs were awarded against
Officer Townes and whether the district court correctly calculated those fees. In
addition, we address Plaintiffs’ claim that the NMSC’s certified answer opened
the door for them to receive punitive damages for their vicarious-liability claim, a
claim the district court previously dismissed on summary judgment. We address
each of these six issues in order.
A
Regarding the first issue, we conclude that N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-1-17 does
not require Defendant CCA to pay the full judgment against Officer Townes. We
review de novo the district court’s interpretation of a state law. See Cent. Kan.
Credit Union v. Mut. Guar. Corp., 102 F.3d 1097, 1104 (10th Cir. 1996).
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-1-17 provides, in relevant part, that New Mexico’s
“corrections department may contract for the operation of any adult female
facility or for housing adult female inmates in a private facility with a person or
entity in the business of providing correctional or jail services to government
entities[,]” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-1-17(A), and that any such contract “shall
include provisions:”
....
9
(2) that the contractor assumes all liability caused by or
arising out of all aspects of the provision or operation of the
facility; [and]
(3) for liability insurance or other proof of financial
responsibility acceptable to the general services department
covering the contractor and its officers, employees and agents
in an amount sufficient to cover all liability caused by or
arising out of all aspects of the provision or operation of the
facility[.]
Id. § 33-1-17(D)(2)–(3). Plaintiffs contend that subsections (2) and (3) require
CCA to assume all liability for injuries caused by Officer Townes (its former
employee).
The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ interpretation of section 33-1-17. The
court observed that it is “patently false” that § 33-1-17’s indemnification
language—which requires the contractor to assume “all liability” arising from the
contract—states that CCA is “strictly liable for any torts committed by its
employees.” Aplts.’ App. at 185–86. (Dist. Ct. Order, filed May 26, 2010).
Instead, the court explained, “any plaintiff suing CCA under the contract must
first show that CCA is actually liable for misconduct under some viable legal
theory.” Id. at 186. Thus, in the district court’s view, “CCA is merely agreeing
[in the contract] to hold New Mexico harmless for any liability which may arise
and to indemnify New Mexico for any expenses it incurs in defending against
such liability. CCA is not agreeing to be held strictly liable under a respondeat
superior theory for the constitutional violations of its employees.” Id. at 187.
10
We deem the district court’s reasoning to be sound and cogent. We uphold
its order for substantially these same reasons. In other words, we agree that N.M.
Stat. Ann. § 33-1-17 does not require Defendant CCA to assume liability for
injuries caused by Officer Townes. As a result, we affirm as to this issue.
B
1
Turning to the second issue, involving the viability of an alleged
comparative-fault defense to Plaintiffs’ negligent-supervision claim and our
certified question, we begin with the NMSC’s holding regarding vicarious
liability under an aided-in-agency theory, because it impacts our disposition of
the comparative-fault negligent-supervision issue. In brief, we adopt the NMSC’s
vicarious-liability holding but only deem it applicable to Defendant CCA because
only CCA and not Ms. Wagner is named in the operative complaint.
Consequently, we conclude that the district court erred in its summary-judgment
ruling regarding vicarious liability. We therefore remand for the district court to
enter judgment in favor of all Plaintiffs and against Defendant CCA on the
vicarious-liability claim, with instructions to award full compensatory damages to
all Plaintiffs on that claim. But, for the reasons noted below, we conclude that
Plaintiffs cannot recover compensatory damages from either Defendant CCA or
Ms. Wagner based on their negligent-supervision claim and do not reach the
comparative-fault issue that we actually certified to the NMSC.
11
More specifically, we adopt the NMSC’s holding of vicarious liability
under an aided-in-agency theory. However, we apply that holding only to
Defendant CCA; only CCA is a named defendant in the vicarious-liability claim
of the operative complaint—not Ms. Wagner. Accordingly, we hold that
Defendant CCA is fully liable for Officer Townes’s intentional torts under an
aided-in-agency theory.
It goes without saying that the NMSC is the final word regarding New
Mexico tort law. Defendants argue nevertheless that it would be unfair for us to
adopt the NMSC’s holding because the NMSC did not answer the certified
question, and because the NMSC “effectively amended the Plaintiffs’ complaint
to add [a] new theory of liability.” Aplees.’ Suppl. Mem. Br. at 1. We disagree.
The vicarious-liability claim as to Defendant CCA was present in the
operative complaint and—even though it did not specifically mention an aided-in-
agency theory—it provides the ultimate predicate for CCA’s liability. 3 In its
certified answer, the NMSC simply clarified the scope and substance of
Plaintiffs’ vicarious-liability claim; in particular, it clarified the permissible
conditions under which relief could be obtained on that pleaded claim—notably,
3
See Second Amended Complaint ¶ 48 (filed Sept. 7, 2010)
(“Defendant CCA, the employer of both Defendant Townes and Defendant
Wagner, is vicariously liable for torts these two Defendants committed within the
scope and course of their duties as a corrections officer and as warden of the
Camino Nuevo facility.”); see also Aplees.’ Suppl. App. at 65 (Answer Br.)
(evincing Defendants’ acknowledgment before the NMSC in the certification
proceedings that “Plaintiffs . . . alleged that CCA was vicariously liable for
Townes’ torts” in the operative complaint).
12
under an aided-in-agency theory. Moreover, as we see it, the NMSC’s holding
regarding vicarious liability is inextricably intertwined with the negligent-
supervision comparative-fault issue as to which we did seek certification;
notably, the NMSC declined to reach the latter issue in light of its holding
regarding the vicarious-liability claim. So, in factoring into our decisional
calculus the NMSC’s answer to our certified question (which queried the NMSC
about the comparative-fault negligent-supervision issue) we think it is proper to
consider and ultimately adopt that court’s associated vicarious-liability holding
and apply it to Defendant CCA.
Furthermore, Defendants had an adequate opportunity to challenge on the
merits the aided-in-agency theory of vicarious liability when Plaintiffs asserted it
before the NMSC during the certification proceedings, but they did not do so;
instead, they elected merely to argue that the theory was not properly before the
NMSC. That Defendants chose not to respond on the merits to Plaintiffs’
arguments regarding the aided-in-agency theory—for strategic reasons or
otherwise—does not mean that they were unfairly deprived of an opportunity to
do so. 4 Therefore, in our view, Defendants do not have a cogent argument that
4
In fact, Defendants had special notice that they should respond to all
state-law arguments raised in the NMSC because our Certification Order made
clear that “Our phrasing of th[e] question [wa]s not intended to limit the New
Mexico Supreme Court’s scope of inquiry[,]” and explicitly “invite[d]” the
NMSC to reformulate the certified question “in any way it [found] helpful.”
Certification Order at 15.
13
they would be denied due process or otherwise treated unfairly if we adopt the
NMSC’s holding on vicarious liability. See, e.g., West v. Grand Cty., 967 F.2d
362, 367 (10th Cir. 1992) (“The individual entitled to due process protection
needs only to be given notice and an opportunity to respond.”); accord Cleveland
Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985) (“The essential
requirements of due process, and all that respondents seek or the Court of
Appeals required, are notice and an opportunity to respond.”).
Thus, having properly adopted the NMSC’s holding and applied it to
Defendant CCA, we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for
Defendants on the vicarious-liability claim, and remand with instructions for the
district court to enter judgment in favor of all Plaintiffs on that claim against
Defendant CCA, and to award them full compensatory damages.
2
Because we adopt the NMSC’s decision regarding vicarious liability, we
decline to reach the merits of Plaintiffs’ negligent-supervision comparative-fault
challenge—which was the issue that we certified to the NMSC. Specifically, as
to Defendant CCA, we deem the issue moot. Because Plaintiffs will recover all
compensatory damages against Defendant CCA under the vicarious-liability
claim, and because they cannot recover for the same harm twice under New
Mexico law, see, e.g., Sunnyland Farms, Inc. v. Cent. N.M. Elec. Coop., Inc., 301
P.3d 387, 400 (N.M. 2013); Hood v. Fulkerson, 699 P.2d 608, 611 (N.M. 1985),
we agree with the NMSC that the negligent-supervision comparative-fault
14
challenge is moot as to Defendant CCA. In other words, because Plaintiffs
cannot recover anything, as a matter of law, on their negligent-supervision claim
from Defendant CCA, we cannot afford any relief on that claim, and Plaintiffs’
comparative-fault challenge with respect to that claim is therefore legally
irrelevant—viz., it matters not whether a negligent-supervision recovery from
Defendant CCA could be permissibly reduced for comparative fault because there
will not be such a recovery for negligent supervision from CCA.
However, importantly, we do not apply the NMSC’s aided-in-agency
vicarious-liability holding to Defendant Wagner because she was not a named
defendant in the vicarious-liability claim of the operative complaint. We
acknowledge that because Ms. Wagner was not a named defendant under the
vicarious-liability claim, the double-recovery rationale—stemming from
Plaintiffs’ full relief on that claim—would not seemingly apply to her. If that
were true, then Plaintiffs conceivably would not be precluded, as a matter of law,
from recovering relief against Ms. Wagner on their negligent-supervision claim
and the viability of a comparative-fault defense relative to such a claim would
still be a question for us to resolve. However, Plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing
does not evince any intention of continuing to prosecute their negligent-
supervision claim against Ms. Wagner, so long as they are permitted to receive
full relief on their vicarious-liability claim against Defendant CCA.
Specifically, Plaintiffs have indicated that their negligent-supervision
claim—and thus the issue of comparative fault—“drops out of the analysis[,]” if
15
they prevail on their vicarious-liability claim against Defendant CCA. Aplts.’
Suppl. Mem. Br. at 2; accord id. at 4, 8. And, perhaps more to the point, with
their gaze seemingly focused on the recovery of damages on their vicarious-
liability claim from Defendant CCA, Plaintiffs have not specifically sought in
explicit terms relief against Ms. Wagner on their negligent-supervision claim.
Accordingly, at least under the circumstances present here, where the condition
of Plaintiffs’ recovery of full relief from Defendant CCA on the vicarious-
liability claim is satisfied, we conclude that Plaintiffs have effectively waived
and abandoned—through the averments of their supplemental briefing or the lack
thereof—any negligent-supervision claim against Ms. Wagner. See, e.g., Bronson
v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007); Tran v. Trs. of State Colls. of
Colo., 355 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 2004). Consequently, we have no need to
decide as to Ms. Wagner whether the district court erred in permitting the
comparative-fault defense to be presented to the jury on the negligent-supervision
claim.
To summarize: we reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment
for Defendants on the vicarious-liability claim, and remand with instructions to
enter judgment for all Plaintiffs on the vicarious-liability claim as to Defendant
CCA. Due to New Mexico’s prohibition on double recovery, and Plaintiffs’
effective waiver of their negligent-supervision claim as to Defendant Wagner, we
need not, and thus do not, resolve any issues regarding the negligent-supervision
16
claim—notably, the issue of whether a comparative-fault defense to such a claim
is viable under the circumstances here.
C
Turning to the third issue in the case, we reject Plaintiffs’ claim that the
jury instructions impermissibly limited their Eighth Amendment claim to a single
theory of liability. “We review ‘a district court’s refusal to give a requested
[jury] instruction for abuse of discretion[,]’ [b]ut we review the jury instructions
de novo to determine ‘whether, as a whole, they accurately state the governing
law.’” Cavanaugh v. Woods Cross City, 718 F.3d 1244, 1251 (10th Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Crockett, 435 F.3d 1305, 1314 (10th
Cir. 2006)).
At the outset, we hold that Plaintiffs’ jury-instructions challenge is fatally
infirm because they failed to identify in their opening brief an additional CCA
policy or custom that was supported by sufficient evidence to warrant a jury
instruction, beyond the policy or custom that was the subject of the district
court’s instruction—viz., a policy or custom of discouraging the reporting of staff
misconduct. 5 Specifically, in order to establish CCA’s liability under 42 U.S.C. §
5
Early in the district court litigation, Defendants moved for summary
judgment on, inter alia, Plaintiffs’ Eight Amendment claim on the ground that
there was “no evidence that CCA had a policy or custom that was the moving
force behind Mr. Townes’[s] conduct.” Aplts.’ App. at 304 (Defs.’ Mot. for
Summ. J., filed Sept. 29, 2010). Plaintiffs responded by setting forth several
CCA policies that they alleged were constitutionally infirm, one of which was
that Defendant CCA had a policy of discouraging “the reporting of staff
misconduct.” Id. at 481. The district court found that Plaintiffs had raised a
17
1983, Plaintiffs were obliged to point to a policy or custom of CCA “that caused
their injury.” Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 409 (1997); see
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (“[A] local government
may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its employees or
agents. Instead, it is when execution of a government’s policy or custom . . .
inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.”);
Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1307 (10th Cir. 1998) (“The County may be
held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only for its own unconstitutional or illegal
policies and not for the tortious acts of its employees.”). 6
In their opening brief, Plaintiffs insist that the district court erred “[b]y
focusing on the search for a single, express policy or policymaking decision by
Defendant Wagner”; as a consequence, they reason, it “ignored the combined
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant CCA had a policy of
discouraging the reporting of staff misconduct, but there was no evidence to
support any of Plaintiffs’ other theories for § 1983 liability. See id. at 500. As a
result, at trial, the jury was instructed that Plaintiffs could only succeed on their
Eighth Amendment claim if they proved that Defendant “CCA had an official
policy or custom of discouraging inmate complaints.” Id. at 1291 (Instruction
No. 13, filed Feb. 15, 2012). During the remainder of their time in district court,
Plaintiffs merely asserted general objections to limiting their Eighth Amendment
claim to the single theory permitted by the summary-judgment proceeding; they
never identified evidence supporting any other theory of § 1983 liability.
6
In addressing Plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment § 1983 claim, the district court
applied the legal principles of municipal liability established by Monell and its
progeny to CCA. In other words, for purposes of this claim, the court assessed
the scope of CCA’s liability just as if it were a unit of local government.
Plaintiffs do not object on appeal to the application of Monell’s rubric to CCA in
the context of this claim, though they do contend in their instructional challenge
that the court misapplied that rubric.
18
effect of the circumstantial evidence showing deliberate ignorance from other
angles.” Aplts.’ Opening Br. at 55. In this regard, Plaintiffs stress that “[a]
conscious or deliberate choice to disregard the risk of harm can reasonably be
inferred from the fact” that Officer Townes engaged in a pattern of tortious
conduct that “was viewable on security cameras” or otherwise noticeable. Id. at
54.
Plaintiffs’ argument is fundamentally misguided, however, because it
conflates their burden to establish that CCA’s agents acted pursuant to a policy or
custom—such that their conduct may be properly attributed to CCA—with their
additional obligation to show that CCA’s conduct involved the requisite
culpability, that is, deliberate indifference. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 404 (“[I]t is
not enough for a § 1983 plaintiff merely to identify conduct properly attributable
to the municipality. The plaintiff must also demonstrate that, through its
deliberate conduct, the municipality was the ‘moving force’ behind the injury
alleged. That is, a plaintiff must show that the municipal action was taken with
the requisite degree of culpability . . . .”); Simmons v. Uintah Health Care Special
Dist., 506 F.3d 1281, 1284 (10th Cir. 2007) (“When employees take actions
specifically authorized by policy or custom, their actions can be fairly said to be
the municipality’s.”); see also City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392 (1989)
(“[W]hile claims such as respondent’s—alleging that the city’s failure to provide
training to municipal employees resulted in the constitutional deprivation she
suffered—are cognizable under § 1983, they can only yield liability against a
19
municipality where that city’s failure to train reflects deliberate indifference to
the constitutional rights of its inhabitants.” (emphasis added)); Barney, 143 F.3d
at 1307 (“The deliberate indifference standard may be satisfied when the
municipality has actual or constructive notice that its action or failure to act is
substantially certain to result in a constitutional violation, and it consciously or
deliberately chooses to disregard the risk of harm. In most instances, notice can
be established by proving the existence of a pattern of tortious conduct.” (citation
omitted)); cf. Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t, 717 F.3d 760,
770 (10th Cir. 2013) (“A challenged practice may be deemed an official policy or
custom for § 1983 municipal-liability purposes if it is a formally promulgated
policy, a well-settled custom or practice, a final decision by a municipal
policymaker, or deliberately indifferent training or supervision.” (emphasis
added)).
In other words, deliberate indifference is not legally actionable under §
1983 in a vacuum; it must pertain to a substantial risk of unconstitutional effects
resulting from municipal conduct—viz., conduct undertaken pursuant to a
municipality’s policy or custom. Therefore, it is not enough for Plaintiffs to
point to circumstantial proof that establishes that Defendant CCA possessed a
generally callous or reckless mindset regarding the conduct of its agents—that is,
a mindset rising to the level of deliberate indifference. They must identify an
actionable CCA policy or custom.
20
In their reply brief, Plaintiffs endeavor to remedy this fatal deficiency by
alluding to a second ostensible policy or custom—“a failure to supervise[,]”
Aplts.’ Reply Br. at 51—but this identification of an additional policy comes too
late. See, e.g., Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1127 (10th Cir.
2011); Wheeler v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 521 F.3d 1289, 1291 (10th Cir.
2008). In any event, even if we were inclined to assess the viability of Plaintiffs’
instructional challenge in light of this late-blooming policy or custom, they would
not prevail. Despite Plaintiffs’ vigorous efforts to demonstrate otherwise, they
have failed to present sufficient evidence that would have warranted a failure-to-
supervise instruction. More specifically, they have failed to present adequate
evidence that Defendant CCA was on “actual or constructive notice” that its
failure to supervise was “substantially certain to result in a constitutional
violation, and it consciously or deliberately [chose] to disregard the risk of
harm.” Barney, 143 F.3d at 1307; see Brown, 520 U.S. at 397 (“As our decision
in Canton makes clear, ‘deliberate indifference’ is a stringent standard of fault,
requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious
consequence of his action.”); see also City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 396 (Brennan,
J., concurring) (“Where a § 1983 plaintiff can establish that the facts available to
city policymakers put them on actual or constructive notice that the particular
omission is substantially certain to result in the violation of the constitutional
rights of their citizens, the dictates of Monell are satisfied.”).
21
For example, Plaintiffs have failed to adequately demonstrate that
Defendants were put on actual or constructive notice by a pattern of officer
sexual assaults at Camino before Officer Townes assaulted them. See Brown, 520
U.S. at 411 (“A plaintiff must demonstrate that a municipal decision reflects
deliberate indifference to the risk that a violation of a particular constitutional or
statutory right will follow the decision.” (emphasis added)); Barney, 143 F.3d at
1308 (“[P]laintiffs’ failure-to-train claim fails because the record contains no
evidence tending to show that the County acted with deliberate indifference. The
Sheriff and the Commissioners testified in their depositions they were unaware of
any previous incidents involving the sexual assault of an inmate by a Box Elder
County jailer or of any complaints about the treatment of women inmates at the
jail.”); see also City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 385 (“[O]ur first inquiry in any case
alleging municipal liability under § 1983 is the question whether there is a direct
causal link between a municipal policy or custom and the alleged constitutional
deprivation. (emphases added)).
In other words, in our view, Plaintiffs’ evidence did not present a triable
issue regarding whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to a substantial
risk that their purported failure-to-supervise policy would cause an Eighth
Amendment violation. Consequently, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the
evidence adduced at trial could have supported Eighth Amendment liability for a
policy other than discouraging inmate complaints. Accordingly, the district court
22
did not err in charging the jury only regarding the policy of discouraging inmate
complaints.
D
Next, we conclude that the district court should revisit the fourth issue
remaining in the case, regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) costs.
Both parties acknowledge that if we adopt the NMSC’s ruling regarding vicarious
liability (as we have), the cost equation will be dramatically altered, not the least
of which because Plaintiff Carrera will now be a prevailing party as to the
vicarious-liability claim, and because there will be no reduction for comparative
fault. So, we vacate and remand for the district court to address this issue in the
first instance.
E
On the fifth issue, for much the same reason that we vacate and remand as
to costs, we do so as to attorneys’ fees. Adopting the NMSC’s ruling scrambles
the decisional chess board, and we deem it prudent to allow the district court to
address in the first instance whether to allow attorneys’ fees. Moreover, we
decline Plaintiffs’ request for appellate attorneys’ fees, which they advance in
skeletal fashion—without citation to pertinent authorities or argument—only in
their opening brief and in their supplemental brief. Cf. Zinna v. Congrove, 755
F.3d 1177, 1183 (10th Cir. 2014) (“Because there is no argument, authority, or
record citations . . . the appellate fee issue is not sufficiently raised on appeal.”).
23
F
Finally, in their post-certification briefing, Plaintiffs seek punitive damages
based on their newly-obtained victory on the vicarious-liability claim. Because
we adopt the NMSC’s view as to vicarious liability, we remand for the district
court to address Plaintiffs’ punitive-damages claim in the first instance. More
specifically, we leave to the district court to decide in the first instance whether
Plaintiffs should be allowed to pursue such punitive damages and, if so, what
procedures should govern the resolution of this damages issue. We do this
recognizing that the vicarious-liability claim for which Plaintiffs seek punitive
damages never went to the jury, and that, prior to their post-certification
supplemental briefing, Plaintiffs did not argue on appeal for punitive damages
relative to this claim. 7
III
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part,
reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this order
7
Plaintiffs initially sought punitive damages for their vicarious-
liability claim in the district court, but after that court dismissed their vicarious-
liability claim on summary judgment, they did not raise their request for punitive
damages on that claim in their pre-certification appellate briefing. They argue
that the certified answer put their request for punitive damages for vicarious
liability back into play. We agree, but at this time only to the extent that
Plaintiffs should have an opportunity to argue for punitive damages before the
district court; we do not opine on the merits of those arguments.
24
and judgment.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Jerome A. Holmes
Circuit Judge
25