Municipal Liability Under 42 USC Section 1983

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss municipal liability under 42 USC Section 1983.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) , the availability of entity liability under section 1983 has been established. This rule is not limited to municipal corporations, although that was the type of entity involved in Monell itself. Glisson v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, 849 F. 3d 372 (7th Cir. 2017) .

The critical question under Monell, reaffirmed in Los Angeles Cnty. v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29, 131 S.Ct. 447, 178 L.Ed.2d 460 (2010) , is whether a municipal (or corporate) policy or custom gave rise to the harm (that is, caused it) , or if instead the harm resulted from the acts of the entity's agents. There are several ways in which a plaintiff might prove this essential element. First, she might show that "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." Humphries, 562 U.S. at 35, 131 S.Ct. 447 (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 690, 98 S.Ct. 2018) . Second, she might prove that the "constitutional deprivation[] [was] visited pursuant to governmental 'custom' even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body's official decisionmaking channels." Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-91, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Third, the plaintiff might be able to show that a government's policy or custom is "made... by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy." Id. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. As we put the point in one case, "[a] person who wants to impose liability on a municipality for a constitutional tort must show that the tort was committed (that is, authorized or directed) at the policymaking level of government...." Vodak v. City of Chicago, 639 F.3d 738, 747 (7th Cir. 2011) . Either the content of an official policy, a decision by a final decisionmaker, or evidence of custom will suffice. Glisson v. Indiana Dept. of Corrections, ibid.