Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01282/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01282-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denver Police Department
Appellee
Robert H. Ketchum
Appellant

Document Text:

" 

FILED 

United States C.O~rt ~f Appeals Tenth C1rcu1t 

FEB 2 5 1991 

UIIITBD STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TBftll CIRCUIT R.OBERT L. HOECKER 

ROBERT H. KETCHUM, a/k/a 

Jim Ehler, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-1282 

) (D.C. No. 90-F-1623) 

) (D. Colorado) 

) 

) 

) 

Before LOGAR, lfOORE, and BALDOCX, Circuit Judges. 

lfOORE, Circuit Judge. 

Clerk · 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1282 Document: 010110028854 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 1 
34 (a) ; 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a complaint filed 

under 28 u.s.c. S 1983. Mr. Ketchum complains that he was falsely 

arrested by officers of the Denver Police Department. The 

district court reviewed Mr. Ketchum's prose brief and dismissed 

his claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. We affirm. 

Keeping in mind that a prose complaint is held to a less 

stringent standard than a complaint drafted by a lawyer, 

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976), we have reviewed Mr. 

Ketchum's arguments to determine whether he could prove any set of 

facts that would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). While Mr. Ketchum alleges that he has been 

falsely arrested "repeatedly" and "the cops persist .•. in false 

arrest," he does not allege that it was the Denver Police 

Department that repeatedly arrested him, nor does he allege any 

facts that could be construed, even in the most forgiving light, 

as establishing a custom or policy adopted by the Denver Police 

Department abridging his constitutional rights. 

It is well established that to state a claim under S 1983 the 

plaintiff must allege that the defendant has adopted an 

unconstitutional custom or policy, and cannot state a claim for 

relief under S 1983 by pointing to isolated incidents. Monell v. 

Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). 

Furthermore, the Denver Police Department cannot be held liable 

under S 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior. Id. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1282 Document: 010110028854 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 2 
. , 

I 

Because Mr. Ketchum fails to allege an unconstitutional 

custom or practice, he also fails to establish the required causal 

nexus between this established custom or policy and the particular 

acts alleged. In Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976), the Supreme 

Court stated that a municipality cannot be held liable under 

S 1983 for civil rights violations caused by individual police 

officers unless the plaintiff can show an "affirmative link 

between the occurrence of the various incidents of police 

misconduct and the adoption of any plan or policy. showing 

their [the municipal policymaker's] authorization or approval of. 

such misconduct." Id. at 371. As this court has stated 

previously, "it is the obligation of the plaintiff to prove that 

there exists a direct • nexus between the constitutional 

torts • and the [policymaker's] authorization or approval 

thereof .•• by the adoption of any plan or policy." D.T. by 

M.T. v. Independent School Dist. No. 16, 894 F.2d 1176, 1187 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 213 (1990). 

In the present case, Mr. Ketchum fails to allege any facts 

that could give rise to a colorable claim that the Denver Police 

Department has adopted a custom or policy that deprived him of a 

constitutional right. Neither has he alleged a causal link 

between a policy decision made by the Denver Police Department and 

the purported abusive behavior of the individual policemen. 

Instead, it appears that he is merely asserting a claim of 

respondeat superior, which is not sufficient to state a claim for 

relief under Monell. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1282 Document: 010110028854 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 3 
: 

Therefore, on these grounds we AFFIRM the district court's 

dismissal of Mr. Ketchum's claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

The mandate shall .issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1282 Document: 010110028854 Date Filed: 02/25/1991 Page: 4