the dart gun. Although her failure to communicate instantly to the police officers the statement about the BB gun was part of a tragic sequence of events, Kreibach did not act with deliberate disregard for Michael Frane's life, so as to subject her to individual liability.
Plaintiffs' allegations against Jerald Bleck also fail. Plaintiffs allege that Bleck's inadequate training and supervision of Kreibach resulted in violations of Michael Frane's constitutional rights. However, without evidence of direct responsibility for a constitutional violation, liability will not attach against a supervisory official. Wolf-Lillie, 699 F.2d at 869. Additionally, supervisors and others in authority cannot be held liable for any alleged wrongdoing on the part of subordinates pursuant to the doctrine of respondent superior, since the doctrine does not apply in Section 1983 actions. Jones v. City of Chicago, 856 F.2d 985, 992 (7th Cir. 1988). As director of TRI-COM, Bleck supervises the dispatchers at TRI-COM, oversees its operations, and is familiar with its practices, customs and policies. However, there is no evidence that Bleck had any involvement in the incident at issue. It is undisputed that on the morning of January 27, 1996, Bleck was not working and therefore, was not supervising the emergency telephone operators who were working that day. Neither is there any indication that had Bleck trained Kreibach differently, this would have affected the events in question. Thus, plaintiffs do not state a viable claim against Jerald Bleck.
II. Claims Against Defendants in their Official Capacity
Plaintiffs also seek to hold defendants Kreibach and Bleck liable in their official capacities. However, a municipality cannot be held vicariously liable for a constitutional violation under a theory of respondent superior. Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S. Ct. at 2036; Rascon, 803 F.2d at 274. Suits against government officers in their official capacities are merely another form of suit against the governmental entity itself. 436 U.S. at 690 n.55, 98 S. Ct. at 2035 n.55. Under Monell, to prevail on a claim against a municipality, plaintiff must show that (1) he or she has suffered a deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest; and, (2) the deprivation was caused by an official policy, custom or usage. Id.
In Count VI, plaintiffs allege that TRI-COM's "inadequate training, supervision and policies of the intergovernmental agency" resulted in the deprivation of Michael Frane's constitutional rights. Compl. P 51 A,B. Specifically, plaintiffs point to TRI-COM's written operations manual regarding domestic disturbances, which provides that dispatchers should "always ask the caller if anyone has any weapons and if anyone has been drinking," but fails to instruct the dispatcher to communicate this information to the officers at the scene. According to plaintiffs, this deficiency in the manual, and the concomitant inadequate training of dispatchers, caused Michael Frane's injuries.
However, a municipality cannot be held liable where there exists no underlying violation by its personnel. Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799-800, 106 S. Ct. 1571, 1573, 89 L. Ed. 2d 806 (1986) (damages not available against municipality where jury has concluded that its officers inflicted no constitutional harm); Tom v. Voida, 963 F.2d 952, 962 (7th Cir. 1992) (same). Since the court has concluded that neither the police officers nor TRI-COM personnel violated Michael Frane's constitutional rights, plaintiffs cannot maintain a custom or policy claim against the municipality.
Further, even if the court had found that constitutional violations occurred, the municipality would still be entitled to summary judgment. To begin, plaintiffs have not alleged a custom or policy that is actionable under § 1983. An allegation of failure to train "can only yield liability against a municipality where the city's failure to train reflects a deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants." City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390, 109 S. Ct. 1197, 1206, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1989); Palmquist v. Selvik, 111 F.3d 1332, 1344-46 (7th Cir. 1997). TRI-COM's policy, on its face, is not "deliberately indifferent" to the rights of its citizens, nor does it authorize unconstitutional behavior. It is doubtful whether there is a deficiency in TRI-COM's policy at all, since the instruction to the dispatcher to inquire about whether anyone has any weapons implies that the dispatcher should communicate that information to the police officers on the scene. Additionally, other than the single incident alleged here, plaintiffs have produced no evidence of a dispatcher committing a constitutional violation. "Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident also includes proof that it was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy." City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823-24, 105 S. Ct. 2427, 2436, 85 L. Ed. 2d 791 (1985).
Furthermore, plaintiffs' allegations against TRI-COM suffer from the same deficiency as their claim against dispatcher Kreibach--plaintiffs have not demonstrated the causal nexus between the municipality's policy or custom and the alleged injuries. See City of Canton, 489 U.S. 378, 389-92, 109 S. Ct. 1197, 1206, 103 L. Ed. 2d 412 (1989) ("the identified deficiency in the city's training program must be closely related to the ultimate injury"); Tuttle, 471 U.S. at 824 n. 8, 105 S. Ct. at 2436 n. 8 ("there must at least be an affirmative link between the training inadequacies alleged, and the particular constitutional violation at issue" to satisfy the policy or custom requirement of Monell). TRI-COM's policies apply only to its own employees. However, it was Officer Kijowski, not dispatcher Kreibach, who fired the shots at Michael Frane. Plaintiffs' claims are too attenuated, in that they cannot show that Officer Kijowski would have acted differently had Kreibach given him the information regarding the BB gun. Thus, there is no evidence on the record that the dispatchers' training was the proximate cause of Michael Frane's injuries.
SUPPLEMENTAL STATE CLAIMS
Having dismissed plaintiff's federal claims, the court is left with state law claims of battery and willful and wanton misconduct against Officer Kijowski. To minimize federal involvement in matters of state law, when federal claims are dismissed before trial, the court generally does not retain jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims. Olive Can Co. v. Martin, 906 F.2d 1147, 1153 (7th Cir. 1990). Thus, the remaining state law claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) (1995).
This case arose out of an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances. But, there is no evidence on the record from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that these defendants violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Therefore, the court grants defendants Kijowski, Cahill and Simpson's motion to dismiss and Defendants Kreibach, Bleck and TRI-COM's motion for summary judgment. Judgment is entered in favor of defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
Dated: January 27, 1998
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
Decision by Court. This action came before the Court. This issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.
IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the motion by defendants Kijowski, Cahill and Simpson to dismiss and the motion by defendants Kreibach, Bleck and TRI-COM's for summary judgment is granted. Judgment is entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.