Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Peter G. Arnold, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Voigt, Chief Justice.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.
VOIGT, C.J., delivers the opinion of the Court; KITE, J., files a specially concurring opinion in which BURKE, J., joins.
[¶1] The appellant claims that, while she was a pretrial detainee in the Laramie County Detention Facility, she was sexually assaulted by a detention deputy. She sued both the deputy and the sheriff who employed him, alleging assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent failure of the sheriff to supervise the deputy, and deprivation of her civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2003). She now appeals from the district court orders granting summary judgment both to the deputy and to the sheriff on all causes of action.
[¶2] We affirm in part and reverse in part.
[¶3] The parties' disjunctive identification of the appellate issues in their respective briefs not being conducive to structured analysis, we will restate the issues as follows:
1. Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment against the appellant on the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act claim?
2. Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the deputy on the state law tort claims?
3. Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the deputy on the federal civil rights claim?
4. Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the sheriff on the state law tort claims?
5. Did the district court appropriately grant summary judgment to the sheriff on the federal civil rights claim?
[¶4]The undisputed material facts relevant to this appeal are not many. On November 9, 2004, the appellant was a pretrial detainee incarcerated in the Laramie County Detention Facility. While she was mopping the floors in the ―pod‖ that evening, she was sexually assaulted by a detention deputy.*fn1 Upon learning about the sexual assault, the sheriff suspended, and then terminated, the deputy's employment on the ground that sexual contact between inmates and detention deputies violated the policies of the sheriff's office.
[¶5] Summary judgments are governed by W.R.C.P. 56(c):
The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
A district court's summary judgment ruling is reviewed de novo, using the same materials and following the same standards as the district court. The evidence is considered from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record.
The summary judgment movant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case for summary judgment by showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that judgment should be granted as a matter of ...