|
|
Section 1983
Case Law Updates:
|
|
|
|
|
Greetings!
Here are the latest case law updates in the field of Civil Rights Litigation as they relate to allegations of police misconduct. We try to keep you informed on new decisions reached in this area of litigation. You can now sign up for Case Law Updates on our website. You can also access prior case law updates on our site or our blog. If you have any decisions you would like to circulate on our updates, please contact me. As always, you can contact me if you have any questions or comments.
|
|
|
Judge Bucklo Rejects Monell Claim Against The City of Chicago Based on Allegations It Had A Policy and Practice of Allowing Excessive Force and That It Failed to Train, Discipline, or Supervise Its Officers.
Edwards v. Two Unknown Male Chicago Police Officers et. al., (2009 WL 1586550) (June 8, 2009)
According to the opinion, "At approximately 12:15 a.m. on July 16, 2006, Edwards (Plaintiff) and his friends went to Spybar. Approximately an hour later, around 1:00 to 1:10 a.m., one of Edwards' friends, Jason Zavala ("Zavala"), was escorted out of the bar by security. Five other patrons with whom Zavala was yelling back and forth also exited the bar. Edwards and his friends followed them out to the street, and found the other patrons had Zavala on the ground and were beating him up. Edwards and three of his friends tried to help Zavala by yelling, pushing, pulling, and grabbing at the attackers. After pulling the attackers off Zavala and getting him off the ground, a Chicago Police squad car arrived with its lights activated. Edwards alleges that officers grabbed him by the shirt, ripping off the buttons. Edwards was confused and shocked, and asked [one of the officers] why he was grabbing him. [The officer] swore at Edwards.... Edwards claims that [two] officers slammed him onto the hood of the car. .... Edwards' friend, Patrick Dillon, testified that [the officers] handcuffed Edwards and "put him on the car." Edwards testified that, "he had me from behind and threw me down like that, forcefully on the hood (indicating)." Although Edwards' testimony on this point is ambiguous, he seems to refer to [a named defendant]."
As a part of his lawsuit alleging civil rights claims against the individual officers, Edwards alleges that the City of Chicago had a policy and practice of "allowing excessive force cases like his "to occur with shocking regularity." Edwards also argues that the City is liable based on its failure to sufficiently train, discipline, or supervise its officers."
Judge Bucklo rejected Edward's claim and explained:
"A municipality is only liable under § 1983 when its policy or custom results in a constitutional injury to the plaintiff. A plaintiff may demonstrate the existence of an unconstitutional policy or custom through: (1) an express policy that, when enforced, causes the loss; (2) a "widespread practice" that constitutes a "custom or usage" that causes the loss; or (3) a person with "final policymaking authority" who causes the loss." (citations omitted)
A municipality is "liable for the violation of an individual's constitutional rights for failure to train adequately its officers only when the inadequacy in training amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of the individuals with whom the officers come into contact." (citations omitted) "Proof of deliberate indifference requires more than a showing of simple or even heightened negligence." (citations omitted). Deliberate indifference is found "when such indifference may be considered a municipal policy or custom." (citations omitted). This may arise in two circumstances: (1) when, given the duties assigned to certain officers or employees, "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 deficiency exhibits deliberate indifference on the part of the municipal policymakers;" or (2) when "a repeated pattern of constitutional violations makes the need for further training ... plainly obvious to the city policymakers." (citations omitted).
The focus is the "adequacy of the training program in relation to the tasks the particular officers must perform." (citations omitted). It is not sufficient to show that a particular officer "may be unsatisfactorily trained[.]"(citations omitted). It is also not sufficient to prove that "injury or accident could have been avoided if an officer had had better or more training, sufficient to equip him to avoid the particular injury causing conduct." (citations omitted). Adequately trained officers occasionally make mistakes, which "says little about the training program or the legal basis for holding the city liable." Id. Moreover, to establish liability, the identified deficiency in the training program must closely relate to the ultimate injury. Id.
In support of his custom or policy argument, Edwards relies on the failure of any of the defendant officers to make a written report [of] the incident; the changing of the paper car from one vehicle to another; and O'Brien's, Zadura's, and Tietz's failure to intervene. Edwards cites no facts apart from the facts relating to the incident in question. Edwards also cites two portions of the policy and procedures manual regarding reporting. He does not elaborate on their significance. The portions of the document cited state procedures for making reports in certain situations, but Edwards has adduced no evidence that these procedures apply so as to require a report to have been made regarding this incident. Nor has Edwards presented any evidence that-even if these procedures should have been but were not followed in this instance-that they are routinely not followed in other cases such that there is a widespread practice of not following making written reports.
In support of his failure to train, discipline, or supervise argument, Edwards relies on the defendant officers' presence at Spybar; the reasonableness of inferring that, if the City conducted proper training and supervision and administered proper discipline, officers would be properly trained; the fact that the use of excessive force is a violation of constitutional rights; O'Brien's, Zadura's, and Tietz's failure to intervene; and the failure to discipline any of the defendant officers for participating in the use of force against Edwards and/or failing to report it. Again, Edwards cites no facts apart from the facts relating to the incident in question. Edwards has not presented any evidence regarding the training, supervision, or discipline of any of the defendant officers, much less shown that such training, supervision, and discipline are so obviously inadequate as to result in the violation of constitutional rights. Nor has Edwards adduced any facts of a repeated pattern of constitutional violations.
See case for discussion on plaintiff's other claims. Summary Judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
|
About Our Firm
Andrew M. Hale & Associates is a firm which specializes in the defense of civil rights lawsuits brought against municipalities and its police officers. The firm's principal attorneys, Andrew M. Hale and Avi T. Kamionski, have significant experience in defending cities, municipalities, police officers and other governmental employees in civil rights lawsuits. Mr. Hale and Mr. Kamionski have tried numerous civil rights cases before juries in the Northern District of Illinois and are seasoned trial attorneys. Contact Andy or Avi to discuss any of your legal needs.
|
|
|
|
The information you obtain in these case law updates is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and welcome your calls, letters and electronic mail. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
