WPCD \en Lgږc^9Q+L eaLR̯-a4L'>C#PiWQ =r%72-J(ө8l xqzYybW2tDv=@&==fev4}{Qy̼<gBGQ+."`h@Ft;&B-h5띅X b3AAn2"*lH!Is/gɆk]P}y`L[Am yσj,V,KDH**L]ɕ_:83!YVƖS6sPa w^o}KVZj-| #7k%-2g"Wo}+˒$1*#eLl>ò>)`O4⌉mg"~Px<^C#Ǵ K]0\t ORsu?ILCi# % ^ 0 UYN! wo 4 z    m 0U \ " 0tNW 0Y 0E 0 0 0K 0 0 0@ 0 0 0 06 0 0~ 0 0 0; 0 0 0{ 0% 0 0g 0 0!b" 0#" 0" 0# 0>Q$ 0$ 0% 0i& 0K' 0-( 0) 0) 0* 02}+ 0+ 0:, 0Y, 0_>- 0 - 0. 0)0 B*/2 D/Y2 02 D/4 04 065 05 0:6 0^7 0<a7 1e7U68UI>88U*v8 8 08 9 9 1u9 B<: 72Y: 0: D5/; D-d; 0K; ; AS;A< 0= 0D= A= > > 0?? @ 0D ANdA\\IB01S04\CLERKKNOX,,,,0. (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularg=.:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   - -0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7D(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dC)1dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X75+ ` hp x 5  C)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialSDU_69(|G2$ !.8Cdd8         0  FN;B05655SDU_173#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) dUi)(|3$ !.8Cdd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  SDU_43^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Cdd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKKStarPageciteas((Cite as: 473 U.S. 159, *166, 105 S.Ct. 3099, **3105)citeas((Cite as: 436 U.S. 658, *690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, **2036 ) R;$      1  1  _Dr.PedigopledguiltytoseveralcriminalchargesstemmingfromhisactionsregardingPlaintiff.citeas((Cite as: 436 U.S. 658, *691 , 98 S.Ct. 2018, **2036 )(#$  0   Wimberly COAT.C.A.Tenn.R.App.PGoddard P.J.MoncierOwingsMcConkeyEdmiston CBL OmerCarvell GTLAmittimusarguendoLimbaughHutchisonScheuer S.Ct n]orm]isuse PapeServsnondoctorrespondeat T]hetortfeasor decisionmakingAdickesKress L.EdU.S.S.C.SturgillPedigo J.W.Tenn.Ct.App JettTenn.CodeBrysonTex.Crim.App H]euse[d !.8Cdd8     _  C8 XXdd8  @ ^pCINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#C^p #Ԉ &   February12,2003Session L X XC #CXX #JOHNS.DOEv.RANDALLE.PEDIGO,etal.X XC  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforKnoxCounty  J @@No.238095HaroldWimberly,_Judge  6 FILEDJUNE30,_2003_    @@*AV) ` dE<Z` AAV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.E200201311COAR3CV   AV) ` dE<|` A }       PlaintiffJohnS.DoebroughtthisactionagainstDr.RandallE.Pedigo,KnoxCountySheriff x  TimothyHutchison,andKnoxCounty,Tennessee.PlaintiffsuedDr.PedigoandSheriffHutchison d intheirindividualandofficialcapacities,allegingliabilityunder42U.S.C.1983andT.C.A. P sections88302,819301and2920205.TheeventswhichformthebasisforPlaintiffscomplaint < occurredonJune13,1994,whenDr.Pedigo,whowasthentheKnoxCountyChiefMedical (x Examiner,injectedPlaintiffwithanincapacitatingdrugwithoutPlaintiffspermission,andforthe d purposeofDr.Pedigossexualgratification,#CXX p#X XCԀtookphotographsofhiminthenude.TheTrialCourt P grantedsummaryjudgmenttoKnoxCounty,toSheriffHutchisoninbothhisindividualandofficial < capacity,andtoDr.Pedigoinhisofficialcapacity.WeaffirmtheTrialCourtsjudgmentinpartand ( vacateinpart.   Tenn.R.App.P3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedinPartand  VacatedinPart;CauseRemanded     #CX #X X.CHoustonM.Goddard,P.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHerschelP.Franks,J., ` joined.CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,filedanopinionconcurringinpartanddissentinginpart. L  HerbertS.Moncier,Knoxville,fortheAppellant,JohnS.Doe $"t! JohnS.OwingsandRobertC.McConkey,III,Knoxville,fortheAppelleesKnoxCounty, #L# Tennessee,RandallE.Pedigoinhisofficialcapacity,andTimothyHutchisoninhisofficialcapacity. $8 $ DeanB.FarmerandKeithL.Edmiston,Knoxville,fortheAppelleeTimothyHutchisoninhis &"& individualcapacity. '"' .  OPINION #CXX ] #X XC )$) #CXX Ň #  X XC  OntheeveningofJune13,1994,thePlaintiffmetwithDr.Pedigoforthepurposeof \+&+ accompanyingandobservinghimintheeventhereceivedanycallstoinvestigatecrimescenesthat H,', wouldrequirehisattentionasChiefMedicalExaminerforKnoxCounty.ThePlaintiff,whowas 4-(- aminoratthetime,hadmetDr.PedigothroughPlaintiffsfather,anacquaintanceofDr.Pedigo.  Plaintiffhadaninterestinamedicalcareeratthetimeandhopedtogainsomeexperienceand  insightintothemedicalprofessionbyaccompanyingDr.Pedigo.Plaintiffalsoplannedtofollow  andobserveDr.PedigothefollowingdayasheperformedsurgeriesattheUniversityofTennessee t MedicalCenter. `   Intheearlyevening,Dr.PedigoandPlaintiffdrovearoundinDr.Pedigosvehicle,making 8  variousstopsandperformingerrands.AlthoughDr.Pedigowas oncallthatevening,hedidnot $ t receiveacalltoinvestigateacrimescene,andatacertainpointintheevening,Dr.Pedigosuggested  ` thattheygotohiscondominium,whichtheydid.  L    Dr.PedigohadtoldPlaintiffthatforhissafety,becausehemightbeexposedtobloodwhile $  accompanyingDr.Pedigo,hewouldhavetoadministerahepatitisBvaccineinjectiontoPlaintiff.   Whenitwasfairlylateintheevening,Dr.PedigotoldPlaintiffitwastimeforhisinjectionandhad   himundressandchangeintoahospitalgown.UnbeknownsttoPlaintiff,Dr.Pedigohadmixedthe   vaccinewithadoseofVersed,anincapacitatingdrugwhichcausedPlaintifftobecomeunconscious.   AfterPlaintiffbecameunconscious,Dr.PedigoremovedPlaintiffsclothingandtookphotographs p ofhim. \   PlaintifffiledthisactiononJune2,1995,againstDr.Pedigo,inbothhisindividualcapacity 4 andofficialcapacityasChiefMedicalExaminer;TimothyHutchison,inbothhisindividualcapacity  p andofficialcapacityasSheriffofKnoxCounty;andKnoxCounty.Asnotedabove,Plaintiff  \ assertedtheoriesofliabilityunder,interalia,42U.S.C.1983andT.C.A.sections88302,819 H 301and2920205.TheDefendantsansweredandfiledmotionsforsummaryjudgment. 4   OnMay17,2002,theTrialCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentonallclaimsinfavorofKnox   CountyandSheriffHutchisonindividuallyandofficially.TheCourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentin  favorofDr.Pedigoonallclaimsexceptthoseformedicalmalpracticeandfalseimprisonment.  Onappeal,PlaintiffquestionswhethertheTrialCourterredingrantingsummaryjudgmenttothe  Defendants. l   InStaplesv.CBL&Associates,Inc.,15S.W.3d83,89(Tenn.2000)theTennesseeSupreme D! Courtstatedthefollowingastothestandardofreviewspecificallyapplicabletosummary 0"  judgments: #l! 8  8`   Thestandardsgoverningtheassessmentofevidenceinthesummary $D # judgmentcontextarealsowellestablished.Courtsmustviewthe %0!$ evidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingpartyandmust &"% alsodrawallreasonableinferencesinthenonmovingpartysfavor. '#& SeeRobinsonv.Omer,952S.W.2dat426;Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d (#' at21011.Courtsshouldgrantasummaryjudgmentonlywhenboth )$( thefactsandtheinferencestobedrawnfromthefactspermita |*%) reasonablepersontoreachonlyoneconclusion.SeeMcCallv. h+&* Wilder,913S.W.2d150,153(Tenn.1995);Carvellv.Bottoms,900  S.W.2d23,26(Tenn.1995).` x` x     WefirstaddressPlaintiffsclaimsunderT.C.A.2920205,asectionoftheGovernmental t TortLiabilityAct( GTLA),whichprovidesinrelevantpartasfollows: ` 8  8`   Immunityfromsuitofallgovernmentalentitiesisremovedforinjury 8  proximatelycausedbyanegligentactoromissionofanyemployee $ t withinthescopeofhisemploymentexceptiftheinjuryarisesoutof: `` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (1)theexerciseorperformanceorthefailuretoexerciseorperform  8  adiscretionaryfunction,whetherornotthediscretionisabused;$ ` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x 8  8`   (2)falseimprisonmentpursuanttoamittimusfromacourt,false   arrest,maliciousprosecution,intentionaltrespass,abuseofprocess,   libel,slander,deceit,interferencewithcontractrights,inflictionof   mentalanguish,invasionofrightofprivacy,orcivilrights...p` x` x AsregardsDr.Pedigo,takingalloftheproofintherecordinthelightmostfavorabletoPlaintiff, H thereisnoactionallegedtohavebeentakenbyDr.Pedigowhichcouldreasonablybedescribedas 4  negligent.Histestimonyinseveraldepositionscontainedintherecordremovesanydoubtthat  p allhisactionsregardingthePlaintiffweredonewillfullyandintentionally.TheGTLA,byits  \ expressterms,removesliabilityonlyfor injuryproximatelycausedbyanegligentactoromission. H (Emphasisadded.) 4   However,assumingarguendothatDr.PedigowasaKnoxCountyemployeeacting within   thescopeofhisemployment,KnoxCountycouldstillbeliableundertheGTLAif,butonlyif,  PlaintiffsinjuriescouldbeshowntohavebeenproximatelycausedbyKnoxCountysnegligentact  oromissioninfailingtopreventDr.Pedigofromcommittinganintentionaltortnotlistedinsection  2920205(2)againstPlaintiff.TheSupremeCourtsopinioninthecaseofLimbaughv.Coffee l MedicalCenter,59S.W.3d73(Tenn.2001)makesthispropositionclear. X    TheLimbaughCourtheldasfollows: 0"  8  8`   [W]eholdthatsection29-20-205oftheGTLAremovesimmunityfor $X" injuriesproximatelycausedbythenegligentactoromissionofa $D # governmentalemployeeexceptwhentheinjuryarisesoutofonly %0!$ thosespecifiedtortsenumeratedinsubsection(2).&"%` x` x 59S.W.3datp.84(emphasisinoriginal).InLimbaugh,theCourtspecificallydeterminedthatthe (#' defendant,CoffeeMedicalCenter, wasindeednegligentinfailingtotakeaffirmativeactionto )$( protectMs.Limbaughfromtheforeseeableriskthatshewouldbeharmedby[itsemployee]Ms. |*%) Ray[.]59S.W.3datp.81.OurinquiryinthepresentcaseiswhetherKnoxCountyand/orSheriff h+&* Hutchisoncouldreasonablybefoundnegligentinfailingtotakeaffirmativeactiontoprotect  PlaintifffromaforeseeableriskofharmfromDr.Pedigo.Construingalloftheevidenceinthelight  mostfavorabletoPlaintiff,wemustanswerthisquestioninthenegative.      Dr.Pedigoadmittedthathebegantakingpicturesofunconsciouspatientsforhissexual ` gratification about1992.Healsostatedthathehadpreviouslyhadyoungmalesaccompanyhim L  intheperformanceofhisdutiesasMedicalExaminer,butthat itdidnthappenonverymany 8  occasions.However,thereisnothingintherecordwhichsuggeststhatSheriffHutchisonorany $ t otherKnoxCountyemployeewas,orshouldhavebeen,awareofDr.Pedigospropensityto  ` surreptitiouslysedateandphotographyoungmen.  L    SheriffHutchisonsaffidavitstatesthefollowinginthisregard: Ididnot,andKnoxCounty, $  Tennesseedidnot,know,authorize,approveoracquiescein,andwehadnowayofknowingor   suspecting,thatDr.Pedigoengagedinillegalorimproperactswithyoungmalesorhadpropensities   todoso.Dr.PedigotestifiedthatSheriffHutchison wouldhavehadnowaytoknowthathe   sometimeshadmalesaccompanyhimtoobservehissurgicalorMedicalExaminerduties,northat   Dr.PedigohadPlaintiffwithhimonthenightofJune13,1994.Plaintifftestifiedinhisdeposition p thathewasawareofnoindependentevidencethatSheriffHutchisonknewofDr.Pedigos \ propensitieswithyoungmales. H   PlaintiffarguesthatSheriffHutchisonandKnoxCountywereawareofDr.Pedigos  p treatmentforalcoholanddrugaddiction,whichbeganinSeptemberof1991.Dr.Pedigotestified  \ thatheunderwentinpatienttreatmentforseveralweeks,andintensiveoutpatienttreatmentata H halfwayhouse,inMemphisforatotaloffourmonths,duringatimewhenhewasChiefMedical 4 Examiner.AssumingthattheSheriffandKnoxCountywereawareofDr.Pedigosalcoholanddrug   addictionandtreatment,whichwemustunderoursummaryjudgmentstandard,webelievethatthis   knowledgedoesnotrendertheactsofwhichPlaintiffcomplainsinanywayforeseeable.Evenwith  thebenefitofhindsight,thereissimplynologicalorpredictablenexusbetweenachemical  dependencyproblemandaninclinationtosecretlysedateyoungmenwithouttheirknowledgeor  consent.AstheSupremeCourtnotedinLimbaugh,thereis noliability...wherethedefendant l neitherknowsnorhasreasontoforeseethedangerorotherwisetoknowthatprecautionsarecalled X  for.59S.W.2datp.80. D!   TheLimbaughcaseisthusdistinguishablefromthepresentcase,inwhichthereisno #l! evidencefromwhichareasonablepersoncouldfindthateitherSheriffHutchisonorKnoxCounty $X" werenegligentinfailingtoprotectPlaintifffromaforeseeableriskofharmfromDr.Pedigo.We $D # affirmtheTrialCourtssummaryjudgmentonPlaintiffstheoriesofliabilityundertheGTLA. %0!$   Plaintiffscomplaintalsocontainsclaimsunder42U.S.C.1983,whichstatesinrelevantpart '#& asfollows: (#' 8  8`   Everypersonwho,undercolorofanystatute,ordinance,regulation, |*%) custom,orusage,ofanyStateorTerritoryortheDistrict_of h+&* Columbia,subjects,orcausestobesubjected,anycitizenofthe  UnitedStatesorotherpersonwithinthejurisdictionthereoftothe  deprivationofanyrights,privileges,orimmunitiessecuredbythe  Constitutionandlaws,shallbeliabletothepartyinjuredinanaction t atlaw,suitinequity,orotherproperproceedingforredress[.]`` x` x   WefirstaddresstheissueofDr.Pedigos42U.S.C.1983liabilityinhisindividualcapacity. 8  TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtaddressedthedifferencebetweenindividualorpersonalcapacity $ t claimsandofficialcapacityclaimsasfollowsinthecaseofKentuckyv.Graham,105S.Ct.3099,  ` 473U.S.159,87L.Ed.2d114(1985): SOX# XXXC  L  8  8`   Personalcapacitysuitsseektoimposepersonalliabilityupona ;  governmentofficialforactionshetakesundercolorofstatelaw.See, 'w  #XCX XOX#?@#OX# XXXCe.g.,Scheuerv.Rhodes,#XCX XOX#jA#OX# XXXCԀ416U.S.232,237238,94S.Ct.1683,1686 c  1687,40L.Ed.2d90(1974).Officialcapacitysuits,incontrast, O  "generallyrepresentonlyanotherwayofpleadinganactionagainst ;  anentityofwhichanofficerisanagent."#XCX XOX#A#OX# XXXCMonellv.NewYorkCity ' Dept.ofSocialServices,#XCX XOX#'C#OX# XXXCԀ436U.S.658,690,n.55,98S.Ct.2018,  2035,n.55,56L.Ed.2d611% \ #XCX XOX#C#%\)D% b OX# XXXCԀ%bjD#XCX XOX#wD#% c %cDOX# XXXC(1978).Aslongasthegovernmententity  receivesnoticeandanopportunitytorespond,anofficialcapacitysuit  is,inallrespectsotherthanname,tobetreatedasasuitagainstthe  entity.#XCX XOX#D#OX# XXXCBrandon,supra,#XCX XOX#-F#OX# XXXCԀ469U.S.,at471472,105S.Ct.,at878.Itis s #XCX XOX#F#OX# XXXCnot#XCX XOX# G#OX# XXXCԀasuitagainsttheofficialpersonally,fortherealpartyininterest _ istheentity.Thus,whileanawardofdamagesagainstanofficialin K hispersonalcapacitycanbeexecutedonlyagainsttheofficial's 7 personalassets,aplaintiffseekingtorecoveronadamagesjudgment #s inanofficialcapacitysuitmustlooktothegovernmententityitself._` x` x 105S.Ct.atp.3105;473U.S.atp.165166.(Emphasisinoriginal.)       #XCX XOX#RG#  Atthehearingonthesummaryjudgmentmotion,theCourtfoundasfollows:    M !"#(03U8  8`   OX# XXXCWithregardtothesemotions,itisclear,fromtheundisputedfacts 6# whichrelatetotheactualeventswhichformthebasisforthis "$r  complaint,thattheDefendantPedigowasnotactingundercolorof %^ ! anystatelaworinconnectionwithanygovernmentalpositionor %J!" duty.&6"#` x` x 8  8`    Withregardtotheseactions,theactionswhichformthebasis %(u#$ ofthiscomplaint,DefendantPedigodidnotclaimtobeactinginany )a$% ofhisparttimepositionswiththecountygovernment,norwerehis )M%& actionsconsistentwithanysuchpositions.Sohewasnotperforming *9&' anyactorapparentdutyofanyofhisparttimecountypositions,but +%'( wasclearlypursuingapersonalgoalandwasneitherintending[n]or  pretending[n]orexercisinganyofficialresponsibilityoraction.` x` x 8  8`    HiscomplainedofactstowardPlaintiffwerepurelyprivate. + Itisthenatureoftheactsperformedthatiscomplainedofwhichthe  courtislookingathere.Sotheseactions,beingunrelatedtoanything  buthispersonalpursuitandinterest,thecourtfindstheresnobasis   forrecoveryinanyoftheseothercapacitiesagainstthesheriff,   againstKnoxCounty,oragainsttheDefendantPedigoinhiscapacity w  asanofficial.c ` x` x TheTrialCourtswrittenorderstatesthat summaryjudgmentshouldbeGRANTEDasto... 1  RandallE.Pedigoinhisindividualandofficialcapacitiesonhisallegedviolationsoftheplaintiffs   civilrightsandthat[the]claimsagainstthosepartiesareherebyDISMISSED.     ThequestionbeforeusiswhethertheactionsofDr.Pedigo,whenviewedinthelightmost 7 favorabletoPlaintiff,canbeconsideredtohavebeentaken undercolorofstatelawwithinthe #s meaningof42U.S.C.1983.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasconsideredanddefinedthe _ phrase undercolorofasfollows: #XCX XOX#J#OX# XXXC[m]isuseofpower,possessedbyvirtueofstatelawandmade K possibleonlybecausethewrongdoerisclothedwiththeauthorityofstatelaw,isactiontaken'under 7 colorof'statelaw.U.S.v.Classic,61S.Ct.1031,313U.S.299#XCX XOX#T#OX# XXXCԀ(1941);Monroev.Pape,365U.S. # 167,81S.Ct.473,5L.Ed.2d492(1961),overruledonothergroundsbyMonellv.Dept.ofSocial  Services,436U.S.658(1978).  #XCX XOX#V#OX# XXXC  Itisclearfromthetestimonyintherecord,andessentiallyundisputed,thatthereason )y PlaintiffwaswithDr.Pedigothateveningwastoobservehim makinghisroundsasKnoxCounty e ChiefMedicalExaminer.Plaintiff,whowastheninterestedinamedicalcareer,testifiedasfollows: Q 8  8`   Theinteresting,excitingthingwasthat[Dr.Pedigo]wasthemedical   examiner.Inhisconversationswithme,heemphasizedthatthiswas k! veryimportant,excitingpartofhiswork,anditwouldbeinteresting W" towitnessthis.C#` x` x   ItisalsoundisputedthatDr.Pedigowas oncalltwentyfourhoursaday,subjectto %!  receivingacalltoinvestigateandexamineacrimesceneorvictimatanytime.Plaintifftestifiedthat &!! atthebeginningoftheeveningheexpectedtobedrivingaroundallnightwithDr.Pedigo.Atsome '"" pointintheevening,Dr.Pedigosuggestedthattheyreturntohiscondominiumtoawaitanycallsthat (## mightcomein.Oncetheywereathiscondominium,Dr.PedigoinsistedongivingPlaintiffan q)$$ injectionofhepatitisBvaccine,forthepurposeofprotectingPlaintiffincaseheshouldcomeinto ]*%% contactwithbloodatacrimescene. I+&& Ї  Plaintiffallegedthatbeforegivinghimtheinjection,Dr.Pedigotoldhimtoundressand  changeintoahospitalgown,andthenproceededtotouchandfondlehiminaninappropriatemanner,  undertheguiseofgivingPlaintiffan anatomylesson.Dr.Pedigothenadministeredtheinjection  thatrenderedPlaintiffunconsciousandproceededtophotographhiminthenude. t #XCX XOX#FW#   `   AlthoughtheTrialCourtiscorrectindescribingDr.Pedigosultimategoalsandactions  B regardingPlaintiffasprivate,personalandunauthorized,webelievealegitimateissuehasbeen  . raisedastowhetherDr.PedigomisusedhispowerandpositionasChiefMedicalExaminerinorder   tocoercePlaintiffintoasituationwherehecouldbetakenadvantageof.Weareoftheopinionthat   areasonablepersoncouldconcludefromtherecordbeforeusthatDr.Pedigosmisdeedsweremade    possibleonlybecausehewasclothedintheauthorityofChiefMedicalExaminer.Wetherefore   vacatetheTrialCourtsordergrantingDr.Pedigosummaryjudgmentinhisindividualcapacity z  under42U.S.C.1983. f    TheTrialCourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentundersection1983asagainstDr.Pedigoin 4 hisofficialcapacity,SheriffHutchison,andKnoxCountymustbeaffirmed,however.TheUnited   StatesSupremeCourthasmadeitclearthattheseentitiescannotbeheldliableunderthetheoryof   respondeatsuperior:  I  8  8`   S:7OX# XXXC[T]helanguageof#XCX XOX#d#OX# XXXC#XCX XOX#e#OX# XXXC1983,readagainstthebackgroundofthesame : legislativehistory,compelstheconclusionthatCongressdidnot &v intendmunicipalitiestobeheldliableunlessactionpursuantto b officialmunicipalpolicyofsomenaturecausedaconstitutionaltort. N Inparticular,weconcludethatamunicipalitycannotbeheldliable : #XCX XOX#Ye#OX# XXXCsolely#XCX XOX#@g#OX# XXXCԀbecauseitemploysatortfeasor!or,inotherwords,a & municipalitycannotbe% Q #XCX XOX#g#%QhOX# XXXCheldliableunder#XCX XOX#Ph#OX# XXXC#XCX XOX#h#OX# XXXC1983ona#XCX XOX#h#OX# XXXCrespondeat  superior#XCX XOX#:i#OX# XXXCԀtheory.8h` x` xhphp }dMonellv.DepartmentofSocialServices,98S.Ct.2018,2036,436U.S.658,691#XCX XOX#i#OX# XXXC(1978) , | (Emphasisinoriginal.) !h #XCX XOX#j# S  TheMonellcourtsetforththetestformunicipalliabilityundersection1983asfollows: "@   8  8`   S%k $  SOX# XXXCLocalgoverningbodies,% S #XCX XOX#l#%S;lOX# XXXCԀtherefore,canbesueddirectlyunder#XCX XOX#|l#OX# XXXC1983 %k  formonetary,declaratory,orinjunctivereliefwhere,ashere,the &W!! actionthatisallegedtobeunconstitutionalimplements#XCX XOX#l#% d %dmOX# XXXCorexecutes &C"" apolicystatement,ordinance,regulation,ordecisionofficially '/## adoptedandpromulgatedbythatbody'sofficers.Moreover,although ($$ thetouchstoneofthe#XCX XOX#m#OX# XXXC#XCX XOX#o#OX# XXXC1983actionagainstagovernmentbodyisan )%% allegationthatofficialpolicyisresponsibleforadeprivationofrights *%& protectedbytheConstitution,localgovernments,likeeveryother#XCX XOX#`o#OX# XXXCԀ +&' _#XCX XOX#p#OX# XXXC1983"person,"bytheverytermsofthestatute,maybesuedfor  constitutional#XCX XOX#p#OX# XXXCԀ#XCX XOX#q#% f %fqOX# XXXCdeprivationsvisitedpursuanttogovernmental  "custom"eventhoughsuchacustomhasnotreceivedformal  approvalthroughthebody'sofficialdecisionmakingchannels.AsMr. t JusticeHarlan,writingfortheCourt,saidin#XCX XOX#q#OX# XXXCAdickesv.S.H.Kress& ` Co.,#XCX XOX#Ws#OX# XXXCԀ398U.S.144,167168,90S.Ct.1598,1613,26L.Ed.2d142 L  (1970):"Congressincludedcustomsandusages[in#XCX XOX#s#OX# XXXC#XCX XOX#t#OX# XXXC1983]because 8  ofthepersistentandwidespreaddiscriminatorypracticesofstate $ t officials....Althoughnotauthorizedbywrittenlaw,suchpractices  ` ofstateofficialscouldwellbesopermanentandwellsettledasto  L  constitutea'customorusage'withtheforceoflaw."  8   ` x` x Monell,98S.Ct.atp.20352036,#XCX XOX#t#OX# XXXC436U.S.atp.690691(1978)(Footnotesomitted.) c  #XCX XOX#v# S  Inthepresentcase,theactionallegedtobeunconstitutionaldoesnotimplementorexecute ;  apolicyofficiallyadoptedbyKnoxCounty,nordoesDr.Pedigosallegedbehaviorconstitutea '  customorusagewiththeforceoflaw.Asalreadynotedabove,noofficialofKnoxCounty,  includingthoseintheSheriffsoffice,kneworhadreasontoknowofDr.Pedigosallegedillegal  orimproperactivities.Consequently,theTrialCourtwascorrectingrantingsummaryjudgmentto  KnoxCountyanditsemployeesintheirofficialcapacityundersection1983.    PlaintiffalsoallegedthatSheriffHutchisonactedinjointconcertwithDr.Pedigo,orina _ civilconspiracywithhim,inordertoviolatePlaintiffsconstitutionalrights.Thereisnoevidence K intherecordtosupportthistheoryandtheCourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentonthisgroundis 7 affirmed. #s   WenextaddressPlaintiffsclaimswhicharebaseduponhisallegationthatDr.Pedigowas K a deputysheriffoftheKnoxCountySheriffsDepartment.Plaintiffsassertionsinthisregardare 7 governedbyT.C.A.88301etseq.,whichstateasfollows: # k  T.C.A.883018 @ 8@   ! 9}o8  8`   Nosheriff,whetherelectedorappointed,noranysuretyonthe "  sheriff'sbonds,shallbeliableforanywrongs,injuries,losses, o#! damagesorexpensesincurredasaresultofanyactorfailuretoacton [$" thepartofanydeputyappointedbythesheriff,whetherthedeputyis G% # actingbyvirtueofoffice,undercolorofofficeorotherwise.3&!$` x` x Ѐ}  T.C.A.88302  ([#& 8  8`   Anyoneincurringanywrong,injury,loss,damageorexpense (G$' resultingfromanyactorfailuretoactonthepartofanydeputy )3%(  appointedbythesheriffmaybringsuitagainstthecountyinwhich *&) thesheriffserves;provided,thatthedeputyis,atthetimeofsuch  occurrence,actingbyvirtueoforundercoloroftheoffice.` x` x    T.C.A.88303 t 8  8`   (a)Thegovernmentalimmunityofthecountyinwhichthesheriff ` servesiswaivedforpurposesof8-8-302,buttoanextentnotin L  excessoftheamountofthesuretybondexecutedforthatcounty's 8  sheriffpursuantto8-8-103.$ t` x` x 8  8`    ` x` x AttheoutsetwenotethatT.C.A.88301servestoshieldSheriffHutchisonfromanyliabilityfor  L  anactoromissiononthepartofanydeputy,andweaffirmtheCourtsgrantofsummaryjudgment  8  inhisfavorunderthisstatute. $  e  AlthoughSheriffHutchisonstatesinhisaffidavitthatDr.Pedigo wasneveranofficer,   deputyoremployeeoftheKnoxCountySheriffsDepartment,wefindthatPlaintiffhaspresented   evidencesufficienttoraiseaquestionoffactastowhetherDr.Pedigowasinfactadeputysheriff.   ThisevidenceincludesDr.Pedigostestimonythathewasa bondeddeputy,theaffidavitofBrian p Sturgill,aformerAssistantChiefDeputy,whichstatesthatDr.Pedigowasadeputysheriff untilthe \ time[Mr.Sturgill]resignedonAugust26,1994,andacopyofDr.Pedigosphotoidentificationcard H whichstates, CHIEFRANDYPEDIGOisaDeputyofKnoxCo.SheriffsDept.andissignedby 4 SheriffTimHutchison.  p Ѐ  Assuming,withoutdeciding,thatDr.PedigowasadeputysheriffforthepurposesofT.C.A. H 88302,hemusthavebeen actingbyvirtueoforundercoloroftheofficeinorderforKnox 4 Countytobepotentiallyliableforhisactions.ThisCourtrecentlyexaminedthatphraseinthecase   ofJ.W.exrel.Wattsv.MauryCounty,andstatedthefollowing:   8  SK S !! 9?+ ` hp x X?  8  8` !!OX# XXXCSections88301to303oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotateddonot : definethephrase"byvirtueoforundercoloroftheoffice."In#XCX XOX#M# OX# XXXCCorder,#XCX XOX#*# OX# XXXC &v theCourtnotedthatthesheriff'sdeputywasoffdutyandhadbeen  b drinkingalcoholataclubwithfriends.#XCX XOX#y# OX# XXXCCorderv.Metro.Gov.Of  N NashvilleandDavidsonCounty,#XCX XOX#W# OX# XXXCԀ852S.W.2d910,911 !: (Tenn.Ct.App.1993).Hestoppedataconveniencestoreandthe "&  victim,anacquaintanceoftheofficer,askedtheofficerforaride #! home.#XCX XOX## OX# XXXCId.#XCX XOX# # OX# XXXCԀTheevidenceindicatedthattheofficershowedthevictim $" hisgunnotinanyofficialcapacity,butrathertoteasethevictimand % # causehimto"stopbeggingforaride."#XCX XOX#W# OX# XXXCId.#XCX XOX#s# OX# XXXCԀat914.Theofficerwas &!$ wearinghisuniformbuthadhisfirearminhisautomobile.#XCX XOX## OX# XXXCId.#XCX XOX#n# OX# XXXCԀat914. r'"% TheCourtconcludedthat,underthesecircumstances,"theshooting ^(#& wasnotbyvirtueoforundercoloroftheofficeofDeputySheriff."#XCX XOX## OX# XXXCId.#XCX XOX## OX# XXXC J)$' at914. 6*%( ЀThiscasepresentsacloserquestion.Here,[defendant]Jettwas "+r&) contactedby[thevictims]Motheratleastinpartbecauseofhis ,^'* positionasanSRO[SchoolResourceOfficer].Jettutilizedhisstatus  asanSROtopersuadeMothertotrusthimtoallowJ.W.tosleepathis  apartment.  ЀAcriminalstatute,section3916402oftheTennesseeCode t Annotated,isinstructiveontheinterpretationofthephrase"byvirtue ` oforundercolorofoffice."Section3916402provides: L  (a)Apublicservantcommitsanoffensewho,withintenttoobtaina 8  benefitortoharmanother,intentionallyorknowingly: $ t ...(2)Commitsanactundercolorofofficeoremploymentthat  ` exceedsthe% T #XCX XOX##%TOX# XXXCservant'sofficialpower....  L  (b)Forpurposesofsubdivision(a)(2),apublicservantcommitsanact  8  undercolorofofficeoremploymentwhoactsorpurportstoactinan $  officialcapacity#XCX XOX#2#OX# XXXCortakesadvantageofsuchactualorpurported   capacity.#XCX XOX#r#OX# XXXCԀ   Tenn.CodeAnn.#XCX XOX##OX# XXXC#XCX XOX#k#OX# XXXC3916402(1997)(emphasisadded).Thus,whena   deputysheriffintentionallyorknowinglyuseshisofficetofacilitatea   crime,heisactingundercolorofhisofficeunderthisstatute.#XCX XOX## OX# XXXCSeealso#XCX XOX#ޚ# OX# XXXC p Tex.PenalCodeAnn.#XCX XOX#.#OX# XXXC#XCX XOX##OX# XXXC39.02(Vernon2002);#XCX XOX## OX# XXXCBrysonv.Texas,#XCX XOX#># OX# XXXCԀ807 \ S.W.2d742(Tex.Crim.App.1991). H #XCX XOX## ` `  J.W.exrel.Wattsv.MauryCounty,anopinionofthisCourtfiledinNashvilleonMarch11,2003, s Rule11applicationforpermissiontoappealfiledMay12,2003. _   Dr.PedigotestifiedthathedrovePlaintiffaroundthateveninginavehicleprovidedtohim - byKnoxCountywhichwasequippedwithapoliceradioandbluelightsandasireninthegrill.  PlaintifftestifiedinhisdepositionthatDr.Pedigo,inthecourseofinvitinghimtoaccompanyhim,   saidhealwaysreceivedcallsthroughoutthenighttodocertainfunctionsasmedicalexamineroras  alawenforcementofficer.PlaintiffstatedasfollowsregardingDr.Pedigo:  8  8` !![H]esaidthatheworkednotonlyasaphysicianandasmedical  ![ examiner,buthewasadeputizedlawenforcementofficer,andthathe !G alsoperformedfunctionsandwouldbeinthatregard.Hewas "3 explainingtomethatwaswhyhe!Hesaid,infact,almostwithsome #  senseofsatisfactionthathealwayscarriedagunwithhimtwentyfour $ ! hours.Thatwasoneofthefirstconversationsthatwehadtogether, % " wasabouthisdutiesasthelawenforcementofficer.&!#` `  8  8` !!   *0h` ` 0hh*00p*'"#$pp 8  8` !!Hewasalways,throughouttheentiretime,receivingcalls.Hehadthe )a$% policeradioon.Hewaslisteningtodifferentbroadcasts...Whathe )M%& actuallysaidtomewasthathewasadeputizedlawenforcement *9&' officer,andthisvehiclehadbeengiventohimby!He_specifically +%'( mentionedthename,andIhadneverheardthisnamebefore,Tim  Hutchison,andhetoldmethathewasSheriffofKnoxCounty.` `  PlaintiffandDr.Pedigotestifiedthattheystoppedthateveningatagasolinerefuelingstationreserved j forlawenforcementofficersonly.  V   InhisdepositionPlaintifftestifiedthat thewholepurposeofthiseveningwasthathetold   methathewouldbeoncall,thathewasthemedicalexaminerofKnoxCounty,thathewasa p  deputizedlawenforcementofficer.Hisaffidavitreiteratesthat IwouldnothavecometoKnoxville \  tobewithPedigoontheeveningofJune13,1994haditnotbeenforPedigoinvitingmetobewith H  himasheperformedhisdutiesasmedicalexaminerandlawenforcementofficerforKnoxCounty. 4    Asnotedabove,theinjectionDr.PedigoadministeredtoPlaintiffcontainedacombination   ofhepatitisBvaccine,whichDr.PedigotestifiedPlaintiffrequiredforhissafetyshouldhehavecome   incontactwithanybloodthatevening,andthedrugVersed,withwhichDr.Pedigoknowingly  plannedtorenderPlaintiffunconscious.Dr.Pedigotestifiedthat because[the]hepatitisBvaccine v wasexpensive,[he]gotitfreefromKnoxCounty.Dr.Pedigoobtainedthevaccineadministered b toPlaintifffromtheKnoxCountyjailfacility. N   ConsideringalltheaboveinthelightmostfavorabletothePlaintiff,weareunabletosaythat  notrieroffactcouldreasonablyfindthatDr.Pedigo OX# XXXCintentionallyorknowinglyuse[d]hisofficeto  facilitatethecrimescommittedagainstPlaintiff.e g#  1      ׀AsdidtheCourtinWatts,wefindthatunderthese  circumstances,assumingforsummaryjudgmentpurposesthatDr.Pedigowasinfactadeputysheriff  atthetime,whetherDr.Pedigoacted byvirtueoforundercolorofhisofficeisagenuineissueof | materialfactforthetrieroffacttodetermine.#XCX XOX#]#WethereforevacatetheTrialCourtsgrantofsummary h judgmentinfavorofKnoxCountyunderT.C.A.88302. T   PlaintiffalsoassertedclaimsofaseparatecauseofactionunderT.C.A.819301against  " SheriffHutchisonforallegedviolationofhisoathofofficeandimproperorneglectfulperformance ! ofthedutiesofhisoffice.Wehaveconsideredtheseclaimsandfindthemtobewithoutmerit.We " alsofindnoerrorintheTrialCourtsdecisiontodenyPlaintiffsmotionforachangeofvenuein # selectingajuryoutsideofKnoxCounty. $   FortheforegoingreasonsthejudgmentoftheTrialCourtgrantingsummaryjudgmenttoDr. 'P"! Pedigoinhisindividualcapacityunder42U.S.C.1983isvacated.Thesummaryjudgmentinfavor '<#" ofKnoxCountyunderT.C.A.88302isvacated.TheremainderoftheTrialCourtsjudgmentis (($# affirmed.CostsonappealareadjudgedonehalfagainstJohnDoeandhissuretyandonehalfagainst )%$ KnoxCountyandDr.Pedigoinhisindividualcapacity,andthecaseisremandedforfurther  proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.       `     h   _________________________________________ Y     `     h   HOUSTONM.GODDARD,PRESIDINGJUDGE