Monell Liability: Suing Cities & Counties
Municipalities can't hide behind qualified immunity. When official policies, widespread customs, or deliberate indifference cause constitutional violations, the government entity pays.
Key Takeaways
- No Qualified Immunity: Cities, counties, and municipalities CANNOT claim qualified immunity—a critical advantage over suing officers.
- Three Pathways: Municipal liability arises through official policy, custom/practice, or failure to train/supervise.
- Better Defendant: Municipalities have resources to pay large judgments. Individual officers often don't.
- Higher Burden: You must prove more than one bad officer—you must connect the violation to municipal decision-making.
What Is Monell Liability?
In Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978), the Supreme Court held that local governments can be sued under §1983 when official policy or custom causes constitutional violations. This overruled earlier precedent that had shielded municipalities entirely.
Key Advantage
Municipalities cannot invoke qualified immunity. If you prove a policy or custom caused the violation, the city is liable—full stop.
Key Limitation
Respondeat superior doesn't apply. A city isn't automatically liable just because its employee violated rights—you must prove the policy connection.
Strategic Value
In Oklahoma, we often name both the individual officer(s) and the municipality. This provides two paths to recovery. Even if qualified immunity protects the officer, the municipality may still be liable—and vice versa.
Three Pathways to Municipal Liability
Monell claims succeed through one of three theories—each requiring different evidence.
Official Policy
A written or formal policy, or a single decision by a final policymaker, that directly caused the violation
Examples: Use-of-force policies, pursuit policies, search warrant procedures
Custom or Practice
Conduct so persistent and widespread that it constitutes de facto official policy
Examples: Pattern of excessive force complaints, consistent failure to investigate misconduct
Failure to Train/Supervise
Deliberate indifference in training or supervision that makes violations inevitable
Examples: No de-escalation training, no mental health crisis training, inadequate use-of-force training
Official Policy Claims
The clearest path to Monell liability is showing an official policy—written or unwritten—authorized or caused the constitutional violation.
Formal Written Policy
Official directives, general orders, or procedures that authorize unconstitutional conduct
Policymaker Decision
A single decision by a final policymaker can create liability when that person has final authority
Ratification
When policymakers approve or adopt subordinate's unconstitutional conduct after the fact
Final Policymaker Key: For a single decision to create liability, it must come from someone with "final policymaking authority"—typically police chiefs, sheriffs, or city councils for different matters.
Custom or Practice
Even without formal policy, a municipality is liable for unconstitutional "customs"—practices so persistent and widespread that policymakers must have known and approved.
| Evidence Type | What It Shows |
|---|---|
| Complaint Patterns | Multiple civilian complaints about similar misconduct going back years |
| Prior Lawsuits | History of §1983 litigation involving similar violations |
| Disciplinary Records | Pattern of officers committing violations without meaningful discipline |
| Internal Reviews | Audit findings or recommendations that were ignored |
| Statistical Analysis | Data showing disproportionate use of force, stops, or arrests |
Discovery Strategy
Proving custom requires extensive discovery: years of complaint files, internal investigation records, disciplinary histories, use-of-force reports, and deposition testimony from supervisors about how things "really work."
Failure to Train or Supervise
When inadequate training or supervision causes constitutional violations, the municipality may be liable for "deliberate indifference" to citizens' rights.
| Element | What You Must Prove |
|---|---|
| Training Deficiency | Gap in training makes officers likely to violate constitutional rights |
| Deliberate Indifference | Municipality knew or should have known training was inadequate |
| Causation | The training failure actually caused the specific violation |
| Pattern (Usually) | Prior incidents put municipality on notice—though single incident can suffice if training gap is obvious |
Pattern Rule
Usually, you need a pattern of similar violations that put the municipality on notice that training was inadequate.
Single-Incident Exception
A single incident may suffice if the training gap was so obvious that violations were virtually certain (rare).
Frequently Asked Questions
Was the City or County Responsible?
When police misconduct stems from policy failures, inadequate training, or a culture of abuse, the municipality pays. We know how to prove it.
Free Consultation