Sue Your Oppressors in Federal Court!

Monell Claims

42 U.S.C. § 1983, allows individuals to sue state and local government officials for violating their constitutional rights. The statute was a result of the Civil Rights Act of 1871... 

also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act. 

A Monell claim refers to a lawsuit brought under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), which allows plaintiffs to sue local government entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional violations. To prevail, a plaintiff must show that the government entity had an official policy, practice, or custom that led to the alleged violation.

Even when a government agency does not technically employ the individual defendant, a Monell claim can still succeed under the following scenarios:

Functional Employer Theory

Even if a government agency is not the direct employer, a Monell claim can prevail if the entity had sufficient control over the actions of the individual defendant. Courts analyze whether the agency had operational control over the individual's conduct, particularly in law enforcement and corrections contexts.

Case Example: McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997)

The Supreme Court examined whether a county could be held liable for a sheriff’s actions. The Court determined that in Alabama, sheriffs acted as state—not county—officials in law enforcement matters, shielding the county from liability.

However, in other jurisdictions [such as Oklahoma], courts have held counties liable where sheriffs or police officers were considered final policymakers for the county.

Application: If an individual defendant (e.g., a contractor or agent) operates under a government agency’s policies, that agency could be held liable even without a formal employment relationship.

Delegation of Policymaking Authority

If a government agency delegates decision-making authority to a non-employee, and that delegation leads to constitutional violations, the agency may be liable under Monell.

Case Example: Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986)

The Supreme Court held that when a county prosecutor authorized unconstitutional law enforcement actions, the county could be liable under Monell, even though the officers executing the orders were not directly employed by the county.

The Court reasoned that if a government official with final policymaking authority directs an unconstitutional act, the government entity can be held responsible.

Application: If a government agency delegates law enforcement or administrative authority to a non-employee (e.g., a private contractor or another agency), and that person enacts unconstitutional policies, a Monell claim may still prevail.

Joint Action or Conspiracy with a Non-Employee

A government entity can be held liable if it engages in joint action with private parties or outside entities that result in constitutional violations.

Case Example: Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970)

The Supreme Court recognized that a private actor could be liable under § 1983 if they conspired with government officials.

If a government agency works in concert with a private entity or a separate government body to violate rights, liability under Monell may attach.

Application: If a government agency conspires with non-employees (e.g., private security firms, federal agencies, or state officials) to violate constitutional rights, a Monell claim can succeed.

Failure to Supervise or Train Non-Employees Exercising Governmental Power

If a government agency fails to supervise or train non-employees who are effectively acting under its authority, liability may arise under Monell.

Case Example: City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)

The Court held that inadequate training or supervision that leads to constitutional violations can create Monell liability if the failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference.

While the case involved direct employees, courts have extended this reasoning to contractors or other non-employees performing essential government functions.

Application: If a government entity contracts out services (e.g., prison healthcare, private police, or juvenile detention facilities) but fails to train or supervise those providing services, Monell liability may apply.

Custom or Practice Leading to Violations by Non-Employees

A government agency can be held liable for constitutional violations carried out by non-employees if there is evidence that an unconstitutional policy or custom was in place.

Case Example: Lytle v. Carl, 382 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2004)

A school district was found potentially liable for a custom of excessive force by a school resource officer, even though the officer was technically employed by the local police department.

The court held that Monell liability was possible because the school district permitted and condoned the unconstitutional conduct.

Application: If a government agency has a longstanding custom of unconstitutional practices that non-employees carry out (e.g., a hospital allowing unlawful detentions or a city tolerating excessive force by private security contractors), liability may attach.

Conclusion

A government agency can be held liable under Monell even when it does not directly employ the individual defendant.  By applying these principles, plaintiffs can successfully bring Monell claims against government agencies that are responsible for constitutional violations, even when the direct perpetrator is not a formal employee.

Don't Forget:

Join our Discord Community
&

Subscribe to The Oversight Chronicles!