Municipal Liability Law Alert Winter 2011


Municipal Policy or Custom Necessary for Prospective Relief By Dan Murray In the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, section 1 of The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was initially intended to enforce the 14th Amendment against the fomenting of the Ku Klux Klan. The Act was later codified, in part, as Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983), which provides: “Every person who, under color of any [state] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . other person . . . to the deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States], shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Thereafter, in 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court in Monell v. New York City Dept of Social Services ruled that a municipal entity is exposed to civil rights liability, if the plaintiff establishes that his/ her injury was the result (or caused by) the implementation or application of a municipal policy or custom. The Court in Monell described what is necessary for municipal liability to attach: “Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers. . . . [They can also be sued for] deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decision-making channels.” The United States Supreme Court in Los Angeles County, California v. Humphries considered whether this policy and custom requirement extends to claims seeking prospective relief. Specifically, the question for the Supreme Court was: Is the policy and custom requirement that exists when money damages are sought, also in play where a plaintiff seeks prospective relief (relief that extends into the future)? The Humphries case was brought by two individuals who had been accused of child abuse, but were later exonerated. The two tried to have their names removed from a Child Abuse Central Index maintained by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Having no success, they sued the County for money damages, an injunction and a declaration that the County had deprived plaintiffs of their constitutional rights by failing to provide a mechanism/procedure through which a once accused child abuser, but now vindicated, could contest his inclusion in the County’s Index. The court of appeals held that, unlike money damages claims, the claim for future or prospective relief (in the forms of an injunction order and declaration of rights) was not limited by the need to prove policy or custom by the County. The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision REVERSED, concluding that, regardless whether the relief requested is money damages or for prospective relief, or both, the pre-condition to municipal liability is a showing by the plaintiffs that the municipality’s violation is the product of the municipality’s policy or custom. “[W]e hold that Monell’s policy or custom requirement applies in § 1983 cases[,] irrespective of whether the relief sought is monetary or prospective.” The Supreme Court has spoken, then, that plaintiffs seeking prospective relief, such as having their names removed from the Child Abuse Central Index, must show they were deprived of rights of due process, and that in doing so, the County was acting according to governmental custom or pursuant to official policy. PRINT VERSION

Municipal Policy or Custom Necessary for Prospective Relief
By Dan Murray

In the post-Civil War Reconstruction period, section 1 of The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was initially intended to enforce the 14th Amendment against the fomenting of the Ku Klux Klan. The Act was later codified, in part, as Section 1983 (42 U.S.C. § 1983), which provides:

“Every person who, under color of any [state] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . other person . . . to the deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States], shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

Thereafter, in 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court in Monell v. New York City Dept of Social Services ruled that a municipal entity is exposed to civil rights liability, if the plaintiff establishes that his/ her injury was the result (or caused by) the implementation or application of a municipal policy or custom.

The Court in Monell described what is necessary for municipal liability to attach:

“Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers. . . . [They can also be sued for] deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decision-making channels.”

The United States Supreme Court in Los Angeles County, California v. Humphries considered whether this policy and custom requirement extends to claims seeking prospective relief. Specifically, the question for the Supreme Court was: Is the policy and custom requirement that exists when money damages are sought, also in play where a plaintiff seeks prospective relief (relief that extends into the future)?

The Humphries case was brought by two individuals who had been accused of child abuse, but were later exonerated. The two tried to have their names removed from a Child Abuse Central Index maintained by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. Having no success, they sued the County for money damages, an injunction and a declaration that the County had deprived plaintiffs of their constitutional rights by failing to provide a mechanism/procedure through which a once accused child abuser, but now vindicated, could contest his inclusion in the County’s Index.

The court of appeals held that, unlike money damages claims, the claim for future or prospective relief (in the forms of an injunction order and declaration of rights) was not limited by the need to prove policy or custom by the County. The U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision REVERSED, concluding that, regardless whether the relief requested is money damages or for prospective relief, or both, the pre-condition to municipal liability is a showing by the plaintiffs that the municipality’s violation is the product of the municipality’s policy or custom. “[W]e hold that Monell’s policy or custom requirement applies in § 1983 cases[,] irrespective of whether the relief sought is monetary or prospective.” The Supreme Court has spoken, then, that plaintiffs seeking prospective relief, such as having their names removed from the Child Abuse Central Index, must show they were deprived of rights of due process, and that in doing so, the County was acting according to governmental custom or pursuant to official policy.

PRINT VERSION