Medford Oregon: Liability

 

I. Plaintiff's § 1983 Claim

https://casetext.com/case/vt-v-city-of-medford 

 

At the police station, Plaintiff alleges that he was taken to a small room by "Ed" and an African American police officer. Plaintiff alleges that he was handcuffed over a chair and that his pants were pulled down. Plaintiff alleges that the officers twice inserted a nightstick into his rectum. Plaintiff alleges that the pain he experienced was intense, rating it a "ten" on a scale of one to ten. Plaintiff alleges that he screamed in pain and called out for his father. Plaintiff also alleges that during the abuse he urinated on his clothes and got an erection and that the police mocked him. Plaintiff alleges that, during the abuse, a third person entered the room and told the officers that they "shouldn't be doing that." Plaintiff alleges that the two officers responsible for the abuse told the third person to leave and that the third person did so.

After the abuse was concluded, Plaintiff alleges that another officer came and took him to a cell. At 8:30 a.m. on December 25, 1981, Plaintiff was transported to juvenile hall.

Plaintiff did not disclose the alleged abuse until March 12, 2007, when he told his mental health counselor. Plaintiff filed his tort claim notice on April 21, 2008.

 

A. Municipal Liability under Monell Generally

A municipality can be held responsible for a violation of a citizen's constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only when it has a policy, custom, or usage that violates those rights. Monell v. New York City Dep't of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). A city is not liable under § 1983 merely because it employs a tortfeasor. Id. Rather, the municipality itself must be the actor and the plaintiff must plead and prove that the municipality adopted a policy or custom and that the execution of that policy or custom caused the constitutional violation. Id. at 694. "The 'official policy' requirement was intended to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality, and thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible." Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479 (1986)(emphasis in original). Municipal "[l]iability may attach . . . only where the municipality itself causes the constitutional violation through '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.'" Ulrich v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968, 984 (9th Cir. 2002)(quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694).