High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
1
(Slip Opinion)
OCTOBER TERM, 2010Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See
United States
v.
Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,
200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
v
.HUMPHRIES
ET AL
.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FORTHE NINTH CIRCUITNo. 09350. Argued October 5, 2010Decided November 30, 2010The Humphries (hereinafter respondents) were accused of child abusein California, but were later exonerated. However, under Californialaw, their names were added to a Child Abuse Central Index (Index),where they would remain available to various state agencies for atleast 10 years. The statute has no procedures for allowing individu-als to challenge their inclusion in the Index, and neither Californianor Los Angeles County has created such procedures. Respondentsfiled suit under §1983, seeking damages, an injunction, and a decla-ration that public officials and petitioner Los Angeles County had de-prived them of their constitutional rights by failing to create amechanism through which they could contest inclusion in the Index.The District Court granted the defendants summary judgment, butthe Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the Fourteenth Amendmentrequired the State to provide those on the list with notice and a hear-ing, and thus respondents were entitled to declaratory relief. Thecourt also held that respondents were prevailing parties entitled toattorneys fees, including $60,000 from the county. The county ob- jected, claiming that as a municipal entity, it was liable only if itspolicy or custom
caused the deprivation of a plaintiffs federal right,
Monell
v.
New York City Dept. of Social Servs.
, 436 U. S. 658
,
694;but a
state
policy caused any deprivation here. The Ninth Circuit,
in-ter alia,
found that respondents did prevail against the county ontheir claim for declaratory relief because
Monell
did not apply to pro-spective relief claims.
Held: Monell
s policy or custom requirement applies in §1983 casesirrespective of whether the relief sought is monetary or prospective.Pp. 410.
2 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
v.
HUMPHRIESSyllabus(a) In
Monroe
v.
Pape,
365 U. S. 167
,
this Court based its holdingthat municipal entities were not person[s] under §1983 on the pro-visions legislative history, particularly Congress rejection of the so-called Sherman amendment, which would have made municipalitiesliable for damages done by
private
persons riotously and tumultu-ously assembled,
id.,
at 188190, and n. 38. Reexamining this leg-islative history in
Monell
, the Court overruled
Monroe.
It concludedthat Congress had rejected the Sherman amendment, not because itwould have imposed liability on municipalities, but because it wouldhave imposed such liability solely based on the acts of others. TheCourt, on the basis of the statutory text and the legislative history,went on to explain what acts are the municipalitys own for purposesof liability. The Court held that a municipality cannot be held li-able solely for the acts of others,
e.g.,
solely because it employs atortfeasor, 436 U. S., at 691, but it may be held liable when execu-tion of a governments policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury,
id.
, at694. Pp. 47.(b) Section 1983, read in light of
Monell
s understanding of the leg-islative history, explains why claims for prospective relief, like claimsfor money damages, fall within the scope of the policy or custom re-quirement. Nothing in §1983 suggests that the causation require-ment should change with the form of relief sought. In fact, the textsuggests the opposite when it provides that a person who meets§1983s elements shall be liable . . . in an action at law, suit in eq-uity, or other proper proceeding for redress. Thus, as
Monell
explic-itly stated, local governing bodies . . . can be sued directly under§1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here,the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or exe-cutes a policy or custom. 436 U. S., at 690. To find the policy orcustom requirement inapplicable in prospective relief cases wouldalso undermine
Monell
s logic. For whether an action or omission is amunicipalitys own has to do with the nature of the action or omis-sion, not with the nature of the relief that is later sought in court.Pp. 78.(c) Respondents arguments to the contrary are unconvincing.Pp. 89.Reversed and remanded.B
REYER
, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all otherMembers joined, except K
AGAN
, J., who took no part in the considera-tion or decision of the case.
_________________ _________________
1Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2010)Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in thepreliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested tonotify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderthat corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 09350
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, PETITIONER
v.
CRAIG ARTHUR HUMPHRIES
ET AL
.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[November 30, 2010]
J
USTICE
B
REYER
delivered the opinion of the Court.In
Monell
v.
New York City Dept. of Social Servs.,
436U. S. 658 (1978), this Court held that civil rights plaintiffssuing a municipal entity under 42 U. S. C. §1983 mustshow that their injury was caused by a municipal policy orcustom. The case before the Court in
Monell
directlyinvolved monetary damages. The question presented iswhether the policy or custom requirement also applieswhen plaintiffs seek prospective relief, such as an injunc-tion or a declaratory judgment. We conclude that it doesso apply.IThe case arises out of the following circumstances: TheCalifornia Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, Cal.Penal Code Ann. §11164
et seq.
(West Rev. Supp. 2010),requires law enforcement and other state agencies toinvestigate allegations of child abuse. These agenciesmust report to the California Department of Justice allinstances of reported child abuse the agency finds notunfounded, even if they are inconclusive or unsubstanti-ated. §§11169(a), 11170(a)(3). The statute requires the
Add a Comment