Burns v. Goodman ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-10779
Summary Calendar
STELLA LOUISE BURNS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHANE TAYLOR GOODMAN ET AL.,
Defendants,
CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:99-CV-313-L
--------------------
January 16, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Stella Burns appeals the district court’s summary judgment
dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in favor of the City of
Garland, Texas (“the City”). She argues that the district court
erred in determining that she did not establish a genuine issue of
material fact whether the City’s policymakers had actual or
constructive knowledge of the policies and customs which lead to
the violation of her constitutional rights.
We review a grant of summary judgment applying the same
standard as the court below. Deas v. River W., L.P., 152 F.3d 471,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 01-10779
-2-
475 (5th Cir. 1998). "Summary judgment is properly granted if 'the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions
on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Rule 56(c)). If the
moving party meets the initial burden of showing that there is no
genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the nonmovant
to set forth specific facts showing the existence of such an issue
for trial. Rule 56(e). In reviewing the district court's grant of
summary judgment, this court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the opponent of the motion and determines whether any
genuine issue of material facts exists. Brock v. Republic
Airlines, Inc., 776 F.2d 523, 527 (5th Cir. 1985).
"To establish county/municipality liability under § 1983 . . .
a plaintiff must demonstrate a policy or custom which caused the
constitutional deprivation." Colle v. Brazos County, Tex., 981
F.2d 237, 244 (5th Cir. 1993). “Actual or constructive knowledge
of such custom must be attributable to the governing body of the
municipality or to an official to whom that body has delegated
policymaking authority.” Matthias v. Bingley, 906 F.2d 1047, 1054
(5th Cir. 1990). Unless officers or employees of a municipality
execute official policy, their actions do not render the
municipality liable under § 1983. Id. The government entity
cannot be held liable on a theory of respondeat superior for the
acts of its non-policy-making employees. Colle, 981 F.2d at 244.
Burns bases her argument that policymakers had or should have
No. 01-10779
-3-
had constructive knowledge on three grounds: (1) upper-jail
management knew that her rapist, Shane Goodman, had been left alone
on duty in the jail on more than one occasion; (2) unnamed
supervisors were aware of sexual interaction between detention
officers and female arrestees; and (3) jail officials did not
conduct an investigation to determine how Goodman was able to
commit his crimes while on duty and no one on the night shift was
disciplined or reprimanded in the aftermath of her rape.
Although Burns presented evidence that upper-level jail
officials were aware that the detention officers were leaving their
shifts during the night shift, the district court correctly noted
that she presented no evidence that these instances were ever
communicated to the City’s policymakers. Burns’s allegation that
unnamed supervisors condoned sexual relations between male
detention officers and female inmates is simply not supported by
the evidence. The evidence furthermore does not support Burns’s
allegation that no internal investigation was ever conducted. The
testimony of detention officers Mark Lamb and Doyle Edwards that
they were unaware of whether such an investigation took place or
whether anyone was reprimanded or terminated as a result thereof is
insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on that
issue.
Burns has not demonstrated that the district court erred in
its summary-judgment decision.
AFFIRMED.