X. Municipal Liability

• Library: Sword and Shield: A Practical Approach to Section 1983 Litigation (ABA) (2015 Ed.)

X. MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

A. Monell, Owen, and Fact Concerts

In the landmark decision Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services,¹⁹⁰ the Supreme Court held that municipal entities are subject to § 1983 liability, but not on the basis of respondeat superior.¹⁹¹ Therefore, a municipality may not be held liable under § 1983 solely because it hired an employee who became a constitutional wrongdoer. Monell established that a municipality is subject to liability under § 1983 only when the violation of the plaintiff's federally protected right can be attributable to the enforcement of a municipal policy, practice, or decision of a municipal policymaker.¹⁹² "[I]t is when execution of a government's policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983."¹⁹³ In Los Angeles v. Humphries,¹⁹⁴ the Supreme Court held that the rule against respondeat superior liability applies regardless of the relief sought. The Court specifically held that the rule against respondeat superior is not limited to claims for damages and applies as well to claims for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Supreme Court in Owen v. City of Independence,¹⁹⁵ held that a "municipality may not assert the good faith of its officers or agents as a defense to liability under § 1983." "[U]nlike governmental municipal officials, municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit—either absolute or qualified under § 1983."¹⁹⁶ Although compensatory damages and equitable relief may be awarded against a municipality under § 1983,¹⁹⁷ the Court in City of Newport v. Fact Concerts¹⁹⁸held that municipalities sued under § 1983 are immune from punitive damages. The Court in City of Newport reasoned that because an award of punitive damages against a municipality would be payable from taxpayer funds, such an award would not further the deterrent and punishment goals of punitive damages. These goals are best accomplished by awards of punitive damages against an official in his personal capacity. As discussed in Part XXI(B), infra, punitive damages may be awarded under § 1983 against a state or municipal official in her individual capacity.

B. Types of Municipal Policies and Practices

Under Supreme Court decisional law, municipal liability may be based upon (1) an express municipal policy, such as an ordinance, regulation, or policy statement; (2) a "widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is 'so permanent and well settled as to constitute a custom or usage' with the force of law";¹⁹⁹ or (3) the decision of a person with "final policymaking authority."²⁰⁰ The following types of municipal policies and practices may give rise to § 1983 liability:

1. deliberately indifferent training²⁰¹
2. deliberately indifferent supervision or discipline
3. deliberately indifferent hiring²⁰²
4. deliberately indifferent failure to adopt policies necessary to prevent constitutional violations²⁰³

C. Causation

There must be a sufficient causal connection between the enforcement of the municipal policy or practice and the violation of the plaintiff's federally protected right. A municipality may be held liable under § 1983 only when the enforcement of the municipal policy or custom was the "moving force" behind the violation of plaintiff's federally protected right.²⁰⁴ The Supreme Court also described this causal connection as a "direct causal link," "closely related," and "affirmatively linked."²⁰⁵ Although the Supreme Court has described its municipal liability causation standard as "rigorous,"²⁰⁶ it has never clarified whether it is equivalent to common-law proximate causation.²⁰⁷

D. Separating Violation of Rights and Basis for Imposing Municipal Liability

In Collins v. City of Harker Heights,²⁰⁸ the Supreme Court stressed that the issue of whether there is a basis for imposing municipal liability for the violation of a § 1983 plaintiff's federal rights is an issue separate and distinct from the issue of whether there was a violation of the plaintiff's federal rights. The Court stated that a "proper analysis requires [the separation of] two different issues when a § 1983 claim is asserted against a municipality: (1) whether the plaintiff's harm was caused by a constitutional violation, and (2) if so, whether the city is responsible for that violation."²⁰⁹ The first issue requires an interpretation of the Constitution, while the second issue involves an interpretation of § 1983.

The basis for imposing municipal liability for violations of federal law is straightforward when the violation is attributable to enforcement of a formally promulgated municipal policy. The other possible bases for imposing municipal liability raise more intricate issues. These bases are discussed in the following subsections.

E. Municipal Policymakers

Supreme Court decisional law holds that municipal liability may be based upon a single decision by a municipal official who has final policymaking authority.²¹⁰ Whether an official has final policymaking authority is an issue of law for the court to be determined by reference to state and local law.²¹¹ The mere fact that a municipal official has discretionary authority is not a sufficient basis for imposing municipal liability.²¹² It is not always easy to determine whether a municipal official has policymaking authority or merely discretionary authority.

Another potentially difficult issue is whether an official is a state or municipal policymaker. To provide a basis for imposing municipal liability, the official must be a municipal policyholder. In McMillian v. Monroe County,²¹³ the Supreme Court held that this issue, too, is determined by reference to state law. The Court in McMillian acknowledged that an official may be a state policymaker for one purpose and a municipal policymaker for another purpose. Lower federal courts commonly hold that district attorneys are state policymakers when prosecuting criminal cases but are municipal policymakers for purposes of carrying out administrative and supervisory functions, such as training of assistant district attorneys.²¹⁴

F. Inadequate Training

In City of Canton v. Harris,²¹⁵ the Supreme Court held that § 1983...