Burke v. Regalado
| Decision Date | 20 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-5042, No. 18-5043,18-5042 |
| Citation | 935 F.3d 960 |
| Parties | 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. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
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.
Table of Contents
1) Deliberate indifference—Objective and subjective components...992
2) Gatekeeping function...992
1) Constitutional violations by TCSO or CHC employees as the basis for the Sheriffs’ liability...996
2) Supervisory liability under § 1983...997
3) Municipal liability under § 1983...998
4) Supervisory and municipal liability—Same elements in this case...998
1) Supervisory liability—Sheriff Glanz...999
2) Municipal liability—Sheriff Regalado...1001
i. Denial of summary judgment based on disputed issues of fact not appealable...1003
ii. Failure to raise qualified immunity in Rule 50 motions...1003
i. No objections to the complaint...1006
ii. Adequate notice of allegations in the pretrial order...1007
i. Additional procedural background...1011
ii. Additional legal background...1013
2) Waiver and inadequate briefing...1014
iii. Analysis...1014
1) The McKelvey Report—Waiver...1014
2) The OSBI Report—Forfeiture...1015
3) Transcript of interview with Mr. Latham...1016
4) Transcript of interview with Mr. Johnson...1016
i. Additional procedural background...1017
ii. Additional legal background...1017
iii. Analysis...1018
i. Additional procedural background...1019
ii. Additional legal background...1019
iii. Analysis...1019
i. Standard of review...1020
ii. Additional procedural background...1020
iii. Additional legal background...1021
iv. Analysis...1021
i. Additional procedural background...1023
ii. Additional legal background...1023
iii. Analysis...1023
i. Additional procedural background...1024
ii. Additional legal background...1024
iii. Analysis...1025
i. Counsel’s allegedly improper statements during closing argument...1025
ii. District court ruling...1025
1) Statements urging the jury to award damages for deterrence...1027
2) Additional legal background...1028
3) Contested statements...1027
4) Statements contrary to the evidence...1029
5) Statements urging the jury to disregard the court’s instructions...1030
6) Statements violating the Golden Rule...1030
7) Statements expressing counsel’s own opinion...1031
8) Pervasiveness of improper comments...1032
5. Remittitur as to Compensatory Damages...1034
i. Degree of reprehensibility...1037
ii. Relationship to actual harm...1038
iii. Comparison to similar cases...1038
i. Preservation and waiver of setoff defense...1040
ii. Setoff law in § 1983 cases...1041 iii. Oklahoma setoff statute...1042
i. Settlement and dismissal of CHC defendants...1042
ii. Pretrial order and motion at trial...1042
iii. Post-trial motions for disclosure of the settlement and a setoff...1043
ii. Error in application of step three of the § 1988 analysis...1045
1) Policy goals of § 1983...1045
2) State law consistency—Case-specific or categorical analysis...1046
3) Error in the district court’s categorical rejection of setoff statute...1047
iii. Disclosure of the settlement agreement...1047
8. Disqualification of District Court Judge...1048
1) 2008 suit against the County and Sheriff Glanz...1050
2) Summary judgment order...1050
ii. Disqualification under § 455(a)...1053
ii. 2008 Case...1056
1) The 2008 case was unrelated to this case...1056
2) The Sheriffs’ other arguments...1058
9. Reassignment on Remand...1058
The Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office ("TCSO") runs the Tulsa County Jail ("the jail"). In 2011, Elliott Williams was jailed there. Shortly after his booking, he severely injured his neck, causing lower body paralysis. No one treated his injury. Despite his frequent complaints of pain and paralysis, no one transported him to a hospital. He remained immobile for five days, lying on his back in various cells at the jail, and died of complications from the neck injury.
The administrator of Mr. Williams’s estate, Robbie Emery Burke, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. It alleged detention officers and medical providers at the jail violated Mr. Williams’s Fourteenth Amendment right by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. It further alleged Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz was liable in his individual supervisory capacity and in his official capacity for his subordinates’ violations. During pretrial litigation, Sheriff Glanz resigned and his successor, Sheriff Vic Regalado, was substituted as the defendant on the official-capacity claim. By the time of trial, Sheriffs Glanz and Regalado ("the Sheriffs") were the only defendants remaining.
A jury awarded Ms. Burke $10 million in compensatory damages against Sheriff Glanz and Sheriff Regalado and $250,000 in punitive damages against Sheriff Glanz in his individual supervisory capacity. On appeal, the Sheriffs challenge the verdict, various evidentiary rulings, and several pre- and post-trial decisions of the district court.
The following summarizes the 11 issues presented on appeal and our dispositions. We organize them under the four types of relief sought by the Sheriffs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Mobley
...the underlying factual findings or to the specific amount imposed (so we do not consider these issues). See, e.g. , Burke v. Regalado , 935 F.3d 960, 1014 (10th Cir. 2019) ("Issues not raised in the opening brief are deemed abandoned or waived." (citation and internal quotation marks omitte......
-
Ashaheed v. Currington
...Co. , 944 F.3d 1259, 1271-72 (10th Cir. 2019). Also, Mr. Ashaheed has inadequately briefed Turner on appeal. See Burke v. Regalado , 935 F.3d 960, 1014 (10th Cir. 2019).Further, Turner does not apply. The Center's religious exemption in its beard-shaving policy determined that Mr. Ashaheed'......
-
Osterhout v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Leflore Cnty.
...the alleged misconduct of Mr. Osterhout's counsel. For these challenges, we apply the abuse-of-discretion standard. Burke v. Regalado , 935 F.3d 960, 1020 (10th Cir. 2019). The district court could not grant a new trial unless the errors had created prejudice and affected a party's substant......
-
Frasier v. Evans
...the constitutional right [the defendant allegedly violated] was clearly established at the time of the violation.’ " Burke v. Regalado , 935 F.3d 960, 1002 (10th Cir. 2019) (quoting Felders ex rel. Smedley v. Malcom , 755 F.3d 870, 877 (10th Cir. 2014) ). We "apply[ ] the same standard as t......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...procedures exacerbated conditions for mentally-ill patients because prison had actual knowledge of poor conditions); Burke v. Regalado, 935 F.3d 960, 994-95 (10th Cir. 2019) (8th Amendment claim where prison officials prevented nurse from entering prisoner’s cell despite urgent need to ten......
-
HELL AND HIGH WATER: HOW CLIMATE CHANGE CAN HARM PRISON RESIDENTS AND JAIL RESIDENTS, AND WHY COVID-19 CONDITIONS LITIGATION SUGGESTS MOST FEDERAL COURTS WILL WAIT-AND-SEE WHEN ASKED TO INTERVENE.
...Kingsley to the excessive-force context). The Tenth Circuit has declined to rule definitively on the issue. See Burke v. Regalado, 935 F. 3d 960, 991 n.9 (10th Cir. 2019) (finding that plaintiffs had satisfied their burden under the Eighth Amendment standard, which is more favorable to defe......
-
Preliminary Sections
...of insurance coverage Highly prejudicial, totally irrelevant to facts & Evd Mistrial….Prejudice incurable 411 ; §213; Burke v. Regalado , 935 F.3d 960 (10th 2019) Irrelevant O, 401, 402, 403 Irrelevant, Incompetent & Misleading Evd must have tendency to make existence of a fact of consequen......
-
Witness
...matters had nothing whatsoever to do with the information that the attorney disclosed to law enforcement authorities. Burke v. Regalado , 935 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2019). Sheriff waived the attorney-client privilege to an e-mail from a government attorney addressing conditions at the jail by ......