Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati et al.
475 U.S. 469 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a single unconstitutional act ordered by an official who possesses final policymaking authority for that specific area of the municipality's business.
Facts:
- Hamilton County Prosecutor Simon Leis began an investigation into Dr. Bertold Pembaur for alleged welfare fraud.
- A grand jury issued capiases (arrest warrants for contempt) for two of Pembaur's employees who had failed to appear for testimony.
- On May 19, 1977, two Hamilton County Deputy Sheriffs attempted to serve the capiases at Pembaur's medical clinic.
- Pembaur refused to allow the deputies to enter the private portion of his clinic to search for the employees.
- After being unable to gain entry, the deputies contacted Assistant Prosecutor William Whalen for instructions.
- Whalen conferred with County Prosecutor Leis, who then instructed Whalen to tell the deputies to "go in and get [the witnesses]."
- Following this direct order, city police officers assisting the deputies obtained an axe and chopped down the clinic door.
- The deputies then entered and searched the clinic but failed to find the individuals named in the capiases.
Procedural Posture:
- Bertold Pembaur filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Hamilton County and other defendants.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint, finding that while the search was unconstitutional, the officials were not acting pursuant to an 'official policy' of the county.
- Pembaur appealed the dismissal of his claim against Hamilton County to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that a 'single, discrete decision' was insufficient to establish the existence of a county policy under Monell.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single, unconstitutional decision by a county prosecutor with final policymaking authority on a particular matter constitute an official 'policy' that can subject the county to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, a single decision by a municipal policymaker under appropriate circumstances can establish an official policy for § 1983 liability. The 'official policy' requirement from Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services is intended to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of its employees to avoid respondeat superior liability. Liability attaches where the official who makes the decision possesses final authority to establish municipal policy regarding the action ordered. Whether an official has final policymaking authority is a question of state law. In this case, the County Prosecutor, acting as the final decisionmaker for the county in this law enforcement matter, made a deliberate choice to order the forcible entry, and that choice directly caused the violation of Pembaur's rights. Therefore, the county may be held liable.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, the county can be held liable because the officials' choice manifested county policy. The crucial factor is that the forcible entry was not illegal under existing federal, state, or local law at the time. Therefore, the officials with authority to make policy in this area had the discretion to choose this course of action. If, however, an official's act deliberately or mistakenly violates established law, it would not represent municipal policy, as the official cannot be said to have the authority to make a policy that contravenes controlling law.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes, the county is liable. The focus on the word 'policy' is a judicial creation not found in § 1983. The original intent of the statute, along with common-law principles like respondeat superior, suggests that Congress intended for a governmental entity to be liable for constitutional violations committed by its agents in the course of their duties. The county has the resources and authority to prevent future violations and should be the primary party responsible, not just the individual officers.
Concurring - Justice O'Connor
Yes, under these specific circumstances, the decision manifested county policy. Because forcible entry was standard procedure for the city and consistent with law at the time, and the county officials had the authority to approve it, this single decision was sufficient to establish liability. However, the majority's reasoning may be too broad and could expose municipalities to liability beyond what was envisioned in Monell.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No, a single, offhand telephone response from a prosecutor does not create official county policy. First, the search was not unconstitutional under the governing law of the circuit at the time, and Steagald v. United States should not be applied retroactively to create civil liability. Second, 'policy' implies a rule of general applicability or a decision reached through a formal, deliberative process, not an 'off-the-cuff answer to a single question.' The majority's holding improperly focuses on the status of the decisionmaker rather than the nature of the decision, effectively creating respondeat superior liability for high-ranking officials, which Monell rejected.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'official policy or custom' requirement for municipal liability under § 1983 established in Monell. It confirms that liability does not require a formal, written rule or a repeated practice; a single, ad hoc decision can suffice. The ruling shifts the focus of litigation from proving a pattern of conduct to identifying the specific officials who possess 'final policymaking authority' under state law for the action in question. Consequently, future cases in this area heavily depend on analyzing state and local statutes to determine which officials have the ultimate say over particular government functions.
Unlock the full brief for Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati et al.