S.D. v. Abreu, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Maryland grants Wicomico County’s motion to dismiss claims arising from alleged sexual assaults and other misconduct by a former deputy sheriff. The court concludes that the deputy was not a County employee for purposes of the asserted vicarious-liability claims and that the complaint fails to plead a municipal policy or custom sufficient to support Monell or Longtin liability. The opinion also dismisses the County’s negligent hiring and retention claim with prejudice based on the plaintiff’s concession.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not plausibly establish that Abreu was a Wicomico County employee. Under Maryland law, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs generally are State officials or employees when performing law-enforcement functions, subject to limited exceptions not alleged here.
2. The complaint failed to plausibly allege that Wicomico County had an unconstitutional policy or custom that caused Plaintiff's injuries, so the Monell and Longtin claims were dismissed.
3. The complaint failed to state a failure-to-train Monell claim because it did not plausibly allege notice of a deficient training program, a deliberate or conscious choice to retain such a program, or that a training deficiency caused Abreu's sexual assaults.
4. The complaint failed to state a failure-to-supervise-or-discipline Monell claim because it did not plausibly allege widespread conduct known to County policymakers, deliberate indifference or tacit authorization, and an affirmative causal link to Plaintiff's injury.
5. The complaint failed to state a condonation claim because the alleged misconduct was not a persistent and widespread practice of sufficient duration to establish actual or constructive knowledge and deliberate indifference by County policymakers.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Abreu was a County employee for purposes of imposing vicarious liability on Wicomico County for his alleged misconduct.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly pleaded a Monell claim against Wicomico County based on an unconstitutional policy or custom.
3. Whether the complaint plausibly pleaded a Maryland Longtin pattern-or-practice claim against Wicomico County.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly pleaded failure-to-train, failure-to-supervise-or-discipline, or condonation theories of municipal liability.
5. Whether the County was immune from the negligent-hiring-and-retention claim that Plaintiff conceded.

Disposition

dismissed