Municipal Liability Under 42 USC PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Municipal Liability Under 42 USC PDF full book. Access full book title Municipal Liability Under 42 USC by LandMark Publications. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: LandMark Publications
Publisher:
ISBN: 9781520262512
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 634
Get Book Here
Book Description
THE PRINT EDITION OF THE CASEBOOK contains a selection of the most recent indexed and paginated decisions of the official reporter. The decisions analyze and discuss municipal liability under 42 USC Section 1983 pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services. The selection of decisions spans from 2014 to the date of publication.In Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a municipality may not be held liable for a � 1983 violation under a theory of respondeat superior for the actions of its subordinates. In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that a "policy or custom" led to the plaintiff's injury. Id. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. The Court has further required that the plaintiff demonstrate that the policy or custom of a municipality "reflects deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants." City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F. 3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016).The Supreme Court has strongly suggested that the deliberate indifference standard for municipalities is always an objective inquiry. In City of Canton, which concerned a Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to train, the Court held that a municipality was deliberately indifferent when "the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." Id. at 390, 109 S.Ct. 1197. The Court articulated a standard permitting liability on a showing of notice: "Where a � 1983 plaintiff can establish that the facts available to city policymakers put them on actual or constructive notice that the particular omission is substantially certain to result in the violation of the constitutional rights of their citizens, the dictates of Monell are satisfied." Id. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (emphasis added). Castro v. County of Los Angeles, ibid.
Author: Fontana
Publisher: Wolters Kluwer
ISBN: 9780735513457
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 642
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: LandMark Publications
Publisher:
ISBN: 9781520262512
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 634
Get Book Here
Book Description
THE PRINT EDITION OF THE CASEBOOK contains a selection of the most recent indexed and paginated decisions of the official reporter. The decisions analyze and discuss municipal liability under 42 USC Section 1983 pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services. The selection of decisions spans from 2014 to the date of publication.In Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), the Supreme Court held that a municipality may not be held liable for a � 1983 violation under a theory of respondeat superior for the actions of its subordinates. In order to establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show that a "policy or custom" led to the plaintiff's injury. Id. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. The Court has further required that the plaintiff demonstrate that the policy or custom of a municipality "reflects deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of its inhabitants." City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F. 3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016).The Supreme Court has strongly suggested that the deliberate indifference standard for municipalities is always an objective inquiry. In City of Canton, which concerned a Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to train, the Court held that a municipality was deliberately indifferent when "the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." Id. at 390, 109 S.Ct. 1197. The Court articulated a standard permitting liability on a showing of notice: "Where a � 1983 plaintiff can establish that the facts available to city policymakers put them on actual or constructive notice that the particular omission is substantially certain to result in the violation of the constitutional rights of their citizens, the dictates of Monell are satisfied." Id. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1197 (emphasis added). Castro v. County of Los Angeles, ibid.
Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Civil rights
Languages : en
Pages : 740
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Fontana
Publisher: Aspen Publishers Online
ISBN: 0735565201
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 3248
Get Book Here
Book Description
Now in a new two-volume Third Edition, Municipal Liability: Law and Practice provides insightful analysis of the civil rights statutesand—such as Sections 1981, 1982, and 1983and—and the essential Supreme Court cases, plus fully up-to-date explanations on how the courts are expanding or limiting plaintiffsand’ rights against municipalities and their public officials. It gives you clear and thorough discussions on how to establish causes of action and assert defenses, who carries the burden of proof, procedural concerns, the particular factors that different courts look for to determine liability, attorneysand’ fees, damages and much more. Potential civil rights violations by municipalities covered in this two volume resource include: E-Mail in the Workplace Fully grasp the balance between employee privacy rights and employer surveillance rights. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), The Wiretap Act, and The Stored Communications Act are all examined. Sample access and disclosure forms are included. Employment Discrimination Youand’ll find out how to bring an actionand—and defend against oneand— for claims under Title VII (including a detailed discussion of sexual harassment claims); The Civil Rights Act of 1991; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plus, several state anti-discrimination laws are discussed to illustrate new developments you need to know. First Amendment Issues Topics include about the impact on First Amendment issues involving freedom of speech, limitations on use of public property, freedom of religion, restrictions on the advertising of alcohol and cigarettes on public ways; and more. Municipal Zoning Topics include establishments that provide adult education; video arcades; the use of building moratoria to slow down development; and liability arising out of the failure to issue a building permit or properly inspect a facility before issuing a certificate of occupancy. Police Misconduct Topics include liability for police officers, supervisors and municipalities; how to show illegal searches, excessive use of force and other violations;malicious prosecution, prisonersand’ rights and freedoms; exhausting state remedies; and more.
Author: Landmark Publications
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN: 9781795272766
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 546
Get Book Here
Book Description
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. * * * It is well established that "under § 1983, local governments are responsible only for 'their own illegal acts.' .... They are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees' actions." Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 60, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011) (quoting Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) (emphasis in Pembaur)); see, e.g., Board of County Commissioners v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) ("We have consistently refused to hold municipalities liable under a theory of respondeat superior."); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 392, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989); Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 665-83, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Plaintiffs who seek to impose liability on local governments under § 1983 must prove, inter alia, that the individuals who violated their federal rights took "'action pursuant to official municipal policy.'" Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. at 60, 131 S.Ct. 1350 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018). * * * "Official municipal policy includes" not only "the decisions of a government's lawmakers," but also "the acts of its policymaking officials, and practices so persistent and widespread as to practically have the force of law.... These are 'action[s] for which the municipality is actually responsible.'" Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. at 61, 131 S.Ct. 1350 (quoting Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 479-80, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (emphasis ours)). Thus, a § 1983 plaintiff need not prove that his injury was caused by an explicitly stated municipal rule or regulation. Further, a municipality may be liable even for its inaction if, in its failure to act, it "'exhibit[ed] deliberate indifference to constitutional deprivations caused by subordinates.'" Cash v. County of Erie, 654 F.3d 324, 334 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Amnesty America, 361 F.3d at 126), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1259, 132 S.Ct. 1741, 182 L.Ed.2d 528 (2012); see generally City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 388-92, 109 S.Ct. 1197. Outlaw v. City of Hartford, 884 F. 3d 351 (2nd Cir. 2018)
Author: Landmark Publications
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 546
Get Book Here
Book Description
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 1 of the casebook covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in relevant part: Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress[.]A municipality or other local government may be liable under § 1983 if the governmental body itself "subjects" a person to a deprivation of rights or "causes" a person "to be subjected" to such deprivation. Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 692 (1978). But, under § 1983, local governments are responsible only for "their own illegal acts." Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 471 (1986) (emphasis in original) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 665-683). They are not vicariously liable under § 1983 for their employees' actions. Id. at 478.Municipal liability under § 1983 has three elements: (1) a policymaker; (2) an official policy; and (3) a violation of a constitutional right whose "moving force" is the policy or custom. Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). Requiring satisfaction of these elements is "necessary to distinguish individual violations perpetrated by local government employees from those that can be fairly identified as actions of the government itself." Id.An official policy "usually exists in the form of written policy statements, ordinances, or regulations, but may also arise in the form of a widespread practice that is 'so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents municipal policy.'" James v. Harris Cty., 577 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir. 2009) (quoting Piotrowski, 237 F.3d at 579). Whatever its form, to yield municipal liability under § 1983, the policy must have been the "moving force" behind the plaintiff's constitutional violation. Piotrowski, 237 F. 3d at 580 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694). In other words, a plaintiff "must show direct causation, i.e., that there was 'a direct causal link' between the policy and the violation." James, 577 F.3d at 617 (quoting Piotrowski, 237 F.3d at 580). "Where an official policy or practice is unconstitutional on its face, it necessarily follows that a policymaker was not only aware of the specific policy, but was also aware that a constitutional violation [would] most likely occur." Burge v. St. Tammany Par., 336 F.3d 363, 370 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Piotrowski, 237 F.3d at 579). Covington v. City of Madisonville, (5th Cir. 2020)
Author: Landmark Publications
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 544
Get Book Here
Book Description
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. * * * The cause of action created by § 1983 may be exercised only against a "person who . . . causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws." 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Supreme Court has interpreted the word "person" broadly, and certain polities, including municipalities, are considered persons for purposes of § 1983 liability. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). * * * Although "person" has been given a wide meaning under § 1983, when the person is a municipality, liability attaches only under a narrow set of circumstances: "A municipality may not be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory-in other words, 'solely because it employs a tortfeasor.'" D'Ambrosio v. Marino, 747 F.3d 378, 388-89 (6th Cir. 2014) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018). Instead, a plaintiff must show that "through its deliberate conduct, the municipality was the 'moving force' behind the injury alleged." Alman v. Reed, 703 F.3d 887, 903 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997)). A plaintiff does this by showing that the municipality had a "policy or custom" that caused the violation of his rights. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. * * * There are four methods of showing the municipality had such a policy or custom: the plaintiff may prove "(1) the existence of an illegal official policy or legislative enactment; (2) that an official with final decision making authority ratified illegal actions; (3) the existence of a policy of inadequate training or supervision; or (4) the existence of a custom of tolerance or acquiescence of federal rights violations." Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 478 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Jackson v. City of Cleveland, 925 F. 3d 793 (6th Cir. 2019)
Author: Landmark Publications
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 544
Get Book Here
Book Description
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. * * * A municipality may be held liable as a "person" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it maintains a policy or custom that causes the deprivation of a plaintiff's federally protected rights. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege either that (1) "a particular municipal action itself violates federal law, or directs an employee to do so"; or (2) the municipality, through inaction, failed to implement adequate policies or procedures to safeguard its community members' federally protected rights. Board of Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404, 407-08, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997); see also Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1143 (9th Cir. 2012). When [ ] a plaintiff pursues liability based on a failure to act, she must allege that the municipality exhibited deliberate indifference to the violation of her federally protected rights. Tsao, 698 F.3d at 1143. Deliberate indifference is "a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action." Brown, 520 U.S. at 410, 117 S.Ct. 1382. Deliberate indifference exists when the need "for more or different" action "is so obvious, and the inadequacy [of existing practice] so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need." City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 & n.10, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989). A plaintiff can meet this standard in one of two ways. In some circumstances, the policy may be so facially deficient that any reasonable policymaker would recognize the need to take action. Brown, 520 U.S. at 409, 117 S.Ct. 1382. When that is the case, a plaintiff need point only to the policy itself to establish that the municipality's policymakers were on notice that the plaintiff's federally protected rights would likely be violated if they failed to act. See id. Alternatively, if the policy is not obviously, facially deficient, a plaintiff must ordinarily point to a pattern of prior, similar violations of federally protected rights, of which the relevant policymakers had actual or constructive notice. Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 62, 131 S.Ct. 1350, 179 L.Ed.2d 417 (2011); Clouthier v. County of Contra Costa, 591 F.3d 1232, 1253 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Castro, 833 F.3d at 1070. Hyun Ju Park v. City and County of Honolulu, 952 F. 3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2020)
![Drawing the Limits on Municipal Liability Under 42 U.S.C. [Paragraph] 1983 and the Meaning of the Policy and Custom Formulation of Monell V. Department of Social Services PDF](https://books.google.com/books/content/images/frontcover/rlFCYgEACAAJ?fife=w80-h100)
Author: Bradley J. Toben
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Liability (Law)
Languages : en
Pages : 148
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. Subcommittee on the Constitution
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Government liability
Languages : en
Pages : 729
Get Book Here
Book Description
Item no. 1042-A.
