Burke v. Regalado, 082019 FED10, 18-5042

Docket Nº:18-5042, 18-5043
Opinion Judge:MATHESON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Party Name:ROBBIE EMERY BURKE, as the Special Administratrix of the estate of Elliott Earl Williams, deceased, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VIC REGALADO, in his official capacity as Tulsa County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellant, and STANLEY GLANZ, in his individual capacity, Defendant. ROBBIE EMERY BURKE, as the Special Administratrix of the estate of Elliott ...
Attorney:Guy A. Fortney (Clark O. Brewster, Katie S. Arnold, and Mbilike M. Mwafulirwa with him on the brief), of Brewster & De Angelis, P.L.L.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants - Appellants. Robert M. Blakemore of Smolen Roytman, (Daniel E. Smolen, of Smolen Roytman; Louis W. Bullock of Bullock, Bullock...
Judge Panel:Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 20, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

ROBBIE EMERY BURKE, as the Special Administratrix of the estate of Elliott Earl Williams, deceased, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VIC REGALADO, in his official capacity as Tulsa County Sheriff, Defendant-Appellant,

and

STANLEY GLANZ, in his individual capacity, Defendant.

ROBBIE EMERY BURKE, as the Special Administratrix of the estate of Elliott Earl Williams, deceased, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STANLEY GLANZ, in his individual capacity, Defendant-Appellant,

and

VIC REGALADO, in his official capacity as Tulsa County Sheriff, Defendant.

Nos. 18-5042, 18-5043

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

August 20, 2019

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 4:11-CV-00720-JED-PJC)

Guy A. Fortney (Clark O. Brewster, Katie S. Arnold, and Mbilike M. Mwafulirwa with him on the brief), of Brewster & De Angelis, P.L.L.C., Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants - Appellants.

Robert M. Blakemore of Smolen Roytman, (Daniel E. Smolen, of Smolen Roytman; Louis W. Bullock of Bullock, Bullock & Blakemore with him on the briefs) Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff - Appellee.

Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and EID, Circuit Judges.

MATHESON, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Table of Contents

I. Background..........................................................................................................................4

A. Factual Background.....................................................................................................4

1. Mr. Williams's Arrest and Transfer to TCSO Custody...........................................4

2. Mr. Williams's Injury and Lack of Treatment........................................................4 a. October 22-Response to initial injury and transfer to medical unit..................4

b. October 23-24-Continued paralysis and arrival of mental health staff............6

c. October 25-Transfer to monitored cell and visit from Dr. Harnish..................8

d. October 26-Lack of medical examination or treatment....................................9

e. October 27-Mr. Williams's first medical exam..............................................10

3. Mr. Williams's Death............................................................................................11

4. McKelvey and OSBI Reports................................................................................11

5. TCSO Policies and Practices.................................................................................12 a. 2007 audit..........................................................................................................12

b. 2009 inspection and Gondles Report.................................................................14

c. Prior inmate deaths............................................................................................15

d. 2010 NCCHC probation....................................................................................16

e. Homeland Security inspection...........................................................................17

i

B. Procedural Background.............................................................................................18

1. Complaint..............................................................................................................18

2. Pre-Trial Motions, CHC Settlement, and Replacement of Sheriff Glanz with Sheriff Regalado................................................................................................................19

3. Trial and Verdict....................................................................................................20

4. Post-Trial Motions.................................................................................................21

II. Discussion..........................................................................................................................21

A. Judgment as a Matter of Law....................................................................................23

1. Denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b)....................................23 a. Additional procedural background....................................................................23

b. Standard of review.............................................................................................24

c. Sufficiency of evidence showing underlying constitutional violation..............24

i. Legal background..........................................................................................25

1) Deliberate indifference-Objective and subjective components..............26

2) Gatekeeping function.................................................................................27

ii. Analysis.........................................................................................................29

d. Sufficiency of evidence showing supervisory and municipal liability.............32

i. Legal background..........................................................................................33

ii

1) Constitutional violations by TCSO or CHC employees as the basis for the Sheriffs' liability........................................................................................33

2) Supervisory liability under § 1983............................................................36

3) Municipal liability under § 1983...............................................................38

4) Supervisory and municipal liability-Same elements in this case...........39

ii. Analysis.........................................................................................................40

1) Supervisory liability-Sheriff Glanz.........................................................41

2) Municipal liability-Sheriff Regalado......................................................45

2. Qualified Immunity...............................................................................................46

a. Legal background..............................................................................................46

i. Qualified immunity.......................................................................................46

ii. Waiver...........................................................................................................47

b. Analysis.............................................................................................................48

i. Denial of summary judgment based on disputed issues of fact not appealable.......................................................................................................................48

ii. Failure to raise qualified immunity in Rule 50 motions................................49

B. New Trial...................................................................................................................50

1. Challenges to Pretrial Order..................................................................................50

iii

a. Additional procedural background....................................................................51

b. Standard of review.............................................................................................53

c. Legal background..............................................................................................54

d. Analysis.............................................................................................................55

i. No objections to the complaint......................................................................56

ii. Adequate notice of allegations in the pretrial order......................................58

2. Challenge to Jury Instructions...............................................................................61

a. Additional procedural background....................................................................61

b. Standard of review.............................................................................................63

c. Legal background..............................................................................................63

d. Analysis.............................................................................................................64

3. Evidentiary Rulings...............................................................................................66

a. Investigative reports and interview transcripts..................................................67

i. Additional procedural background................................................................67

ii...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP