Municipal Liability and 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Volume 2 baixar epub

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss issues surrounding municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

* * *

To impose Monell liability on a municipality under Section 1983, plaintiff must prove: (1) [plaintiff] had a constitutional right of which he was deprived; (2) the municipality had a policy; (3) the policy amounts to deliberate indifference to his constitutional right; and (4) "the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation." Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011).
A governmental policy is "a deliberate choice to follow a course of action... by the official or officials responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question." Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). A plaintiff can satisfy Monell's policy requirement in one of three ways. See Thomas v. County of Riverside, 763 F.3d 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). First, a local government may be held liable when it acts "pursuant to an expressly adopted official policy." Id. (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018); Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 978, 982 (9th Cir. 2004).
Second, a public entity may be held liable for a "longstanding practice or custom." Thomas, 763 F.3d at 1170 (citation omitted). Such circumstances may arise when, for instance, the public entity "fail[s] to implement procedural safeguards to prevent constitutional violations" or, sometimes, when it fails to train its employees adequately. Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1143 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir. 1992)); see also Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 61, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011) ("A municipality's culpability for a deprivation of rights is at its most tenuous where a claim turns on a failure to train." (citation omitted)); Flores v. County of Los Angeles, 758 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring a plaintiff asserting a claim based on a failure to train to allege facts showing that defendants "disregarded the known or obvious consequence that a particular omission in their training program would cause municipal employees to violate citizens' constitutional rights") (internal alterations omitted) (quoting Connick, 563 U.S. at 61, 131 S.Ct. 1350).
Third, "a local government may be held liable under [Section] 1983 when 'the individual who committed the constitutional tort was an official with final policy-making authority' or such an official 'ratified a subordinate's unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it.'" Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1250 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1992)), overruled on other grounds by Castro, 833 F.3d at 1070).

Gordon v. County of Orange, 6 F. 4th 961 (9th Cir. 2021)