The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 4, 2014, 02:25 PM   #76
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim
....If you sue the government for violating your civil rights and win, they often not only have to pay you your court costs, but you get punitive/reward/extra money as well? So the SF sheriff is going to be writing a huge number of checks to residents of San Francisco paid for by a lot more residents of San Francisco?
Yes and no. I'm not entirely sure about the 9th Circuit, but in the 8th:
Punitive damages are unavailable against a city, county, or state;
Punitive damages are available against an actor in his individual capacity.
In general, Monell claims are disallowed in all circuits (see Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). This Supreme Court Case held that generally, you can't sue a municipality, such as town, village, county or school district, for something that a government employee did. In other words, there is no respondeat superior in § 1983 litigation.

There appears to be some confusion among the circuits however, if you have indisputable proof that the Superior Commissioner, City/County/State Supervisor, et al, knew that such action was a civil rights violation and still failed to provide adequate supervision or a change of conduct that would alleviate the violation. While certainly the individual would be responsible in a § 1983 suit, the municipality seldom is.

That's an extremely high hurdle to overcome, to get around the Monell exclusion. And that's assuming the circuit you are in, allows such an exclusion. It is something the Supreme Court will have to ultimately decide.

I'm pretty sure that the 9th is in line with the 8th. So while the individuals running the County/City may be liable, the municipality will not be.

I hope this clarifies what you are reading, Jim.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 4, 2014, 02:40 PM   #77
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
In general, Monell claims are disallowed in all circuits (see Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). This Supreme Court Case held that generally, you can't sue a municipality, such as town, village, county or school district, for something that a government employee did. In other words, there is no respondeat superior in § 1983 litigation.
No, there is no respondeat superior. However, a city may be sued directly as a person under § 1983. Monell v. Department of Social Services. But, in order to impose liability on a municipality under § 1983, the plaintiff must identify a custom or policy that caused the plaintiff’s injury. Board of Commissioners of Bryan County, Oklahoma v. Brown.

In other words, a city/county entity may not be held liable simply because it employs a tortfeasor, or because of an isolated incident of unconstitutional behavior on the part of one of its employees. However, it can be held liable where it can be shown that a policy, practice, or custom of the entity was a moving force behind the violation. It can also be held liable where the one "bad actor" is a policymaker for the entity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
There appears to be some confusion among the circuits however, if you have indisputable proof that
the Superior Commissioner, City/County/State Supervisor, et al, knew that such action was a civil rights violation and still failed to provide adequate supervision or a change of conduct that would alleviate the violation. While certainly the individual would be responsible in a § 1983 suit, the municipality seldom is.
See "policymaker" above.

Also:
Quote:
. . . .it is plain that municipal liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policymakers under appropriate circumstances.

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480, 106 S. Ct. 1292, 1298, 89 L. Ed. 2d 452 (1986)
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 4, 2014, 03:33 PM   #78
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
Although it feels like justice for a local government to be held liable, nothing brings reality home quite like an official getting personally sued. Good luck filling that empty position with another willing violator.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 4, 2014, 04:23 PM   #79
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
In other words, a city/county entity may not be held liable simply because it employs a tortfeasor, or because of an isolated incident of unconstitutional behavior on the part of one of its employees. However, it can be held liable where it can be shown that a policy, practice, or custom of the entity was a moving force behind the violation. It can also be held liable where the one "bad actor" is a policymaker for the entity
So the City of Seattle was at least partially on the hook here, (probably because of more than civil rights violations but also that "emotional distress" stuff which it should have normally been immune to) because they have a recent history of doing this sort of thing such that the DOJ was one more-ish news story away from taking over?

And the LA county could be on the hook because the one bad actor, in this case the Sheriff of LA County, is a policymaker for the entity- obviously because the policy he's making is violating the right, willfully ignoring the judgement just handed to his virtual neighbor for the same thing?
JimDandy is offline  
Old May 4, 2014, 09:12 PM   #80
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
Many municipal governments carry insurance which will cover their employee's acts, including civil rights violations even if the judgment is against the employee and not the government. A judgment against a police officer can affect the rates a city pays for that insurance.

However, insurance policies typically exclude punitive damages and exclude acts which are criminal. I'm sure that's why the SPD lawsuit settled without any punitive damages -- it would have let the insurance company off the hook with the plaintiff's recourse to seek collection on the police officer's personal assets.
KyJim is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 08:33 AM   #81
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
It appears Drake has been denied cert

They have denied cert. in Drake v. Jerejian.
by Amy Howe 6:31 AM
Comment (1)
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Liv....JpuloDew.dpuf
speedrrracer is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 08:37 AM   #82
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
Does that make the 9th more or less likely grant en banc?

If they either decline en banc, or uphold it, then what? Do they decline cert here too as they don't want to touch the issue yet?
JimDandy is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 08:55 AM   #83
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
And the official orders:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/c...14zor_m6io.pdf

I don't know how this affects the 9th. I have a gut feeling they will now act, and we'll see the antis out in full force, overturning Peruta.

Then Peruta can be the next case to be denied cert? Ah, it's a beautiful day outside, I need some fresh air
speedrrracer is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 10:11 AM   #84
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,872
Quote:
Gore could take that position since he has changed his process to accept self-defense as good cause.
He has not taken that position . If you apply for a CCW and use self defense as your reason . You get a letter back stating that is not good cause but he will hold your app until Peruta is final . He will then proses them in the order they were received .

So for me I'm not sure what moot means . Gore had a press release stating he did not need any clarification as to how to interpret the ruling so what are they asking of him ? The case is in no way moot to him . It is the very thing he is waiting for in order to change his issuing policy . The letter is clear , I do not meet the requierments of good cause at this time . Sounds to me he has not changed anything .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

Last edited by Metal god; May 5, 2014 at 10:30 AM.
Metal god is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 12:05 PM   #85
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
I dunno what this means for the 9th. Gore has to reply by the 15th of this month, then the panel will decide about Harris' status (by end of May?). The the entire Circuit must vote on en banc (2-3 weeks?).

As good as the majority opinion is, the anti's don't care. Their aversion to proles having privileges similar to theirs is a gut feeling, not an intellectual weighing of evidence.

I guess pessimism is a reasonable frame of mind.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 12:22 PM   #86
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
It appears Drake has been denied cert
This is, what, the fourth time they've refused to address the issue?

The lower courts are doing everything in their power to eviscerate Heller and McDonald. We have a very real doctrinal question, and we have a circuit split. Why to they continue to avoid the issue?

The two possibilities I see are that they feel they can't be bothered, or they're afraid of political fallout. In either case, anyone concerned with civil liberties (pro-gun or not) should be very concerned.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 12:50 PM   #87
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
They have waited this long. I can't imagine why they wouldn't wait to see how things shake out in the Ninth Circuit. For them I think the issue is almost, but not quite ripe.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 02:31 PM   #88
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
I can't imagine why they wouldn't wait to see how things shake out in the Ninth Circuit.
I can't imagine that you actually believe this.

First, things have shaken out in the 9th. The opinion is out there, and was already cited before SCOTUS (in Drake). The case may never go en banc, so to the outside world, it's a done deal. Even if it's nuked, the split with the 7th remains, and resolving splits is a major function of SCOTUS.

2nd, why on earth do they care what the 9th might do en banc? Is one of the lower judges going to write some amazing reversal or affirmation of Peruta that illuminates the whole issue for the poor, confused SCOTUS Justices? "Ohhhhhh, now I get it....OK, yeah, that clears it up for me, thanks"
speedrrracer is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 02:38 PM   #89
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 1,416
SCOTUS is concentrating their efforts on more mundane things, like prayer before town meetings. Forget the 2A.
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 02:44 PM   #90
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
I can't imagine why they wouldn't wait to see how things shake out in the Ninth Circuit.
Quote:
I can't imagine that you actually believe this.
I have to believe it because the alternative, should it prove to be true, may require the sharpening of pitchforks. Sure, Peruta is out there, but it is anything but settled business.

Has the SCOTUS ever before declared a right to be fundamental and incorporated, and then refused to uphold it ever again?

Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 5, 2014 at 02:51 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 02:53 PM   #91
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
Well now there's no excuse for the DC district court to rule in that carry case.

And let's not forget "Peruta" is actually three cases...Peruta, Richards (Yolo County CA) and Baker (Hawaii). If the current three-judge ruling stands through the en banc process then either Yolo County or Hawaii (or *maybe* California AG Harris who is a hardcore grabber) can appeal to The Nine Robes in DC.

I think they'd hear an appeal from a government agency.
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 03:24 PM   #92
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
Could someone in one of the more restrictive circuits file suit based on a violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause?
JN01 is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 03:41 PM   #93
Jim March
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 1999
Location: Pittsburg, CA, USA
Posts: 7,417
Well sure but...that won't work in the circuits where holdings are against us, which is so far the 2nd/3rd/4th.

Look, what that means is the only remaining states where we can fight are Massachusetts in the 1st Circuit, the DC carry case (the one that multiple judges are refusing to rule on) in the DC Circuit and Peruta, if we get shot down en banc.

My hope now is that the Peruta ruling stands and takes effect, which means the Baker and Richards cases also stand because they're based on the same logic, and somebody on the losing .gov side petitions the Supremes.

We have, maybe, one last alternative...we drag the 11th Circuit into it. There are no may-issue states there BUT both GA and AL have laws banning the carry of guns at political rallies or protests (even legal ones), which violates the hell out of the 2nd Amendment and we could in theory get a pro-carry ruling that way.

OR we do a suit against one of the federal no-guns-in-our-building bans? Won't work against a courthouse, but against a toilet in a national forest? Just thinking out loud here...
__________________
Jim March
Jim March is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 04:03 PM   #94
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
To my point, I was wondering if bringing up the 14th on appeal (of another losing case) and waving another flag in the face of the Supreme Court might make them any more inclined to hear the case.
JN01 is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 04:28 PM   #95
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
which violates the hell out of the 2nd Amendment and we could in theory get a pro-carry ruling that way
I think you'd have a hard time getting that one through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Heller Decision, emphasis mine
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings
If the Post Office can be a sensitive place...
JimDandy is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 04:39 PM   #96
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Has the SCOTUS ever before declared a right to be fundamental and incorporated, and then refused to uphold it ever again?
Not to my recollection, but there's a first time for everything.

The Roberts court has done some waffling, and they appear to be more conscious of public approval than usual. It could be they don't want to make a decision that's going to be unpopular.

I really, really hope I'm wrong on that, because the implications aren't pretty.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 05:09 PM   #97
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
SCOTUS' function is less of protecting our rights and now is more of resolving circuit splits, unfortunately.
To what Jim said about other possible cases-there are numerous possibilities out there.
IL should be sued in both state and Federal courts for their weird CCW law which only allows residents of SC and HI to apply. SC should be sued in state court for it's discrimination of 20+ state residents for no non-res permits and no recognition of non-resident CCWs. Oregon has several towns with OC bans, yet only allows border state residents to get a CCW, and the state precedents on public carry are very good. Denver can be sued for no OC as a follow up to Peterson.
I think a Palmer-like case should be filed in DC Superior court(the "state" version of DC courts as opposed to the DC Federal District), since Palmer may never be decided.
The possible cases are out there, and the orgs need to consider more may be necessary to force the issue on SCOTUS.
press1280 is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 05:55 PM   #98
speedrrracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
The Roberts court has done some waffling, and they appear to be more conscious of public approval than usual. It could be they don't want to make a decision that's going to be unpopular.

I really, really hope I'm wrong on that, because the implications aren't pretty.
Well, if it's any consolation, Lyle Denniston thinks you're wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle Denniston
Only two explanations seem plausible: either the Court is content to let lower courts work out the details of gun rights and detention authority, or the Justices are hesitating to take on a new case because they are not sure how the votes will be cast on final decisions.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/05/st...uns-and-gitmo/
speedrrracer is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 06:16 PM   #99
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Only two explanations seem plausible: either the Court is content to let lower courts work out the details of gun rights
Yeah, but how much more hashing out do they need? I suppose we could rack up a couple more cases here and there, but the issue remains, and the arguments have been made.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 5, 2014, 06:38 PM   #100
press1280
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 228
If the court truly does not know which way the votes will fall, then perhaps it'll have to come from a jurisdiction with a total carry ban like DC or American Samoa, and N. Marianas, which oddly still has a handgun ban which no one has challenged.
press1280 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.14972 seconds with 9 queries