Date: 07-03-2024

Case Style:

Hollis Ann Whitson v. The Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, et al.

Case Number: 1:18-CV-02076

Judge: DDD

Court: United States District Court for the District of Kansas (Sedgwick County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Wichita Civil Rights Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Jonathan N. Eddy and Eric M. Ziporin

Description:

Wichita, Kansas civil litigation lawyers represents the Plaintiff who sued on a civil rights violation theory.

heriff Thomas Hanna of Sedgwick County, Colorado, sexually assaulted an
intellectually disabled prisoner while transporting her between county jails. The
victim, Peatinna Biggs, filed this civil-rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by and
through her guardian ad litem, Plaintiff Hollis Ann Whitson, against Sedgwick
County, the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department, and Sheriff Hanna in his
individual and official capacities.

On August 10, 2016, Ms. Biggs was incarcerated in the Sedgwick County Jail. She is an adult with an intellectual disability. The jail was run by Sheriff Hanna, the highest ranking law-enforcement officer in Sedgwick
County. Hanna told his Deputy Sheriff Larry Neugebauer that he was going to
transfer Ms. Biggs to the Logan County Jail using his personal vehicle. 1 Hanna gave
Ms. Biggs her street clothes and ordered her to change into them. “Deputy
Neugebauer knew it was highly unusual to have an inmate change . . . into street
clothes before being transferred.” Joint App. at 25. At about 12:15 p.m. he saw
Sheriff Hanna load Ms. Biggs, who was handcuffed, into the front passenger seat of
his vehicle.

Instead of transporting her to the Logan County Jail, Sheriff Hanna brought
Ms. Biggs into his home. With a gun in his holster, he offered to pay her $60 to have
sex with him. She refused. He then sexually assaulted her. His gun remained visible
on a coffee table throughout the assault. After the assault Hanna “threatened Ms.
Biggs that if she told anyone about what he had done she would spend the rest of her
life in prison.” Id. at 27. At about 12:51 p.m. he told the dispatcher that he was taking
Ms. Biggs to the Logan County Jail. After driving her there he deposited $20 into her
commissary account.

While the assault was occurring, Deputy Neugebauer drove past Hanna’s
house on his way to and from his lunch break and saw Hanna’s empty vehicle parked
outside his home on both occasions. He reported the incident to the Logan County
District Attorney’s Office on August 22. Because of the threat by the sheriff, Ms.
Biggs had not reported the incident. The District Attorney opened an investigation,
and two days later Hanna was criminally charged with sexual assault on an at-risk
adult, sexual conduct in a correctional institute, soliciting prostitution, and first-
degree official misconduct. Hanna was later removed from office.
Neither the County of Sedgwick nor the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s
Department had any policy in place to oversee and monitor the actions of Sheriff
Hanna. “This lack of oversight allowed former Sheriff Hanna’s actions to go
unchecked and unmonitored throughout his term as the highest ranking law
enforcement officer.”

* * *

A municipal government is not liable for every constitutional violation by one
of its officers or employees. Although a municipality is a “person” subject to suit
under § 1983 for constitutional violations, it “cannot be held liable solely because it
employs a tortfeasor—or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under
§ 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S.
658, 691 (1978). Rather, a municipality is responsible only for (1) actions taken by
subordinate employees in conformity with preexisting official policies or customs
and (2) actions taken by final policymakers, whose conduct “can be no less described
as the official policy of a municipality.” Seifert v. Unified Gov’t of Wyandotte
Cnty./Kansas City, 779 F.3d 1141, 1159 (10th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation mark
omitted); see Simmons v. Uintah Health Care Special Dist., 506 F.3d 1281, 1283
(10th Cir. 2007) (Gorsuch, J.) (While municipalities are liable for official policy
decisions, “this is hardly the only basis available for assigning municipal liability.”
Municipalities are “equally answerable for actions undertaken by their final
policymakers, whether or not those actions conform to their own preexisting rules.”);
id. at 1287 (“Actions taken by a municipality’s final policymakers, even in
contravention of their own written policies, are fairly attributable to the municipality
and can give rise to liability.”).

Outcome: Judgment in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $8.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: