9th Circuit: Monell Claim May Be Inferred From Failure to Discipline
The court of appeals vacated a district court judgment and remanded the action for a new trial. The court held that the district court prejudicially erred in refusing to instruct the jury that, for purposes of proving aMonell claim, a custom or practice can be supported by evidence of repeated constitutional violations which went uninvestigated and for which the errant municipal officers went unpunished.
Robert Hunter and Howard Eley sued Sacramento County and others on causes of action arising out of the men’s alleged mistreatment while in custody at the Sacramento County Main Jail. The district court dismissed all of the claims except for a Monell claim against the County.
The Monell claim alleged by Hunter and Eley (Hunter) alleged that they were subjected to excessive force, in violation of their rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983, pursuant to the County’s longstanding practice or custom of subjecting inmates at the Main Jail to excessive force.
Before trial, the district court proffered a proposed Monell instruction that laid out the elements of a claim for the use of excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both sides objected, and Hunter in pertinent part submitted proposed additional instructions addressing standards for liability under Monell. One of the instructions stated that a plaintiff could attempt to prove the existence of a custom or informal policy with evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officials were not discharged or reprimanded.
The district court’s final set of jury instructions did not include any of the supplemental instructions proposed by Hunter. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the County.
The court of appeals vacated the district court’s judgment, holding that the district court prejudicially erred in failing to use Hunter’s proposed instructions.
The court of appeals observed that in Monell, the Supreme Court held that municipalities may be held liable as “persons” under 42 U.S.C. §1983, but cautioned that a municipality may not be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees solely on a respondeat superior theory. Instead, a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a municipality under §1983 must identify a municipal “policy” or “custom” that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
At trial below, the district court’s jury instructions adopted the definition of “practice or custom” set out in Model Instruction 9.4, namely that “practice or custom” means any permanent, widespread, well-settled practice or custom that constitutes a standard operating procedure of the defendant.
That definition was consistent with Ninth Circuit case authority on Monell decisions, but it was not a complete statement of the circuit’s caselaw. For example, this circuit has long recognized that a custom or practice can be inferred from widespread practices or evidence of repeated constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officers were not discharged or reprimanded. Indeed, Hunter submitted a proposed instruction using such language.
Hunter had good reason to do so, as his theory, and his expert evidence, was that officials in the Main Jail repeatedly failed to investigate incidents of excessive force and to take disciplinary action against guards who used such force, despite the existence of an official policy prohibiting the use of excessive force. Thus his instructions were vital to his case. The legal principle that evidence of a recurring failure to investigate and discipline municipal officers for constitutional violations could help show the existence of an unconstitutional practice or custom simply was not inferable from the definition of “practice or custom” in Model Instruction 9.4.
This all meant that, in the context of this action, the definition of practice or custom in Model Instruction 9.4 was incomplete, and thus an incorrect, statement of the law. In addition, by stating that a practice or custom had to constitute a standard operating procedure of the defendant, the instruction could have encouraged the jury to disregard evidence that the County failed to investigate and punish the use of excessive force. Therefore, the court said, the district court’s decision not to use Hunter’s proposed instructions was in error.
The error was not harmless. Hunter intended to show a “practice or custom” that would support Monellliability even though the County had submitted evidence that the Main Jail had a formal written policy barring the use of excessive force. Hunter’s evidence would have established that there were repeated constitutional violations at the Main Jail for which the errant municipal officials were not discharged or reprimanded, which in turn would have supported an inference that an informal but widespread custom of using excessive force existed at the Main Jail.
That evidence could have swayed the jury to a different result, but without Hunter’s proposed instructions, the jurors would not have known whether to consider the evidence that numerous instances of excessive force weren’t investigated and that their perpetrators weren’t punished. Under Model Instruction 9.4, the jurors might have thought it improper to consider such evidence at all.
Hunter v. County of Sacramento