2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-14-2010 

# Gr a ce M arvel v

. C ounty of D el a

ware P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-2838

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Gr a c e M ar ve l v

. C ounty of D e l a

war e " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 436. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/436T he H onor abl e J ohn E . J ones , I I I , U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctJ udge forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ct * of Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 2838 G R A C E M A R V E L , I ndi vi dual l yand a s E x e c u trix f

o r th e E sta te o f

D a v id M a rv e l, A ppel l ant v. C O U N T Y O F D E L A W A R E , W A L T E R R . O M L O R , J R .;

a n d P AUL M . M I CU N,

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l A ct i on N o. 2- 07- cv- 05054) D i s t r i ctJ udge: R onal d L . B uckw al t er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary12, 2010 B efor e: A M B R O and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and J O N E S, D i s t r i ctJ udge * ( O pi ni on fi l ed : O ct ober14, 2010)

OP I NI ONAR D i s a p r o g r a m f o rf i r s t - t i me o f

f e n d e r s th a t , u p o n s u c c e s s f u l c o mp l e t i o n , a l l o ws 1 t he under l y i ng cr i m i nal char ges t o be di s m i s s ed. 2 J O N E S, D i s t r i ctJ udge A ppel l antG r ace M arvel ( “M r s . M arvel ”) , act i ng as exec utr i x of the Est at e of he r hus band, D avi d M arvel ( “M r . M arvel ”) , appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tof the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof A ppel l ees C ount yof D el aw ar e ( “D el aw ar e C ount y ”) , W al t erR . O m l or , J r . ( “O m l or ”) and Paul M . M i cun ( “M i cun”) , i n t hi s ci vi l r i ght s act i on ar i s i ng outof M r . M arvel ’ s death on A ugus t1, 2006 w hi l e he w as per form i ng court - or der ed comm uni t ys ervi ce a tthe D elaw are C o u n tyE m erg en cyT raining C en ter. W e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. I. A ft erbei ng arr es t ed on D U I - r el at ed cha r ges i n R i dl eyC r eek St at e Park on M ay 10, 2006, 59- y earol d M r . M arvel , i n cons ul t at i on w i t h couns el , appl i ed forand w as acc ept ed i nt o D el aw ar e C ount y ’ s fas t - t r ack a cce l er at ed r ehabi l i t at i on di s pos i t i on (“ A R D ” ) p ro g ra m . P a rticip a tio n in th e A R D p ro g ra m is to tallyv o lu n tar y , an d a ll 1 c o m m u n ity se rv ic e w o rk e rs a re a d v is e d in a d v a n c e th a t th e yw ill e n g a g e in m a n u a l la b o r. I ndi vi dual s i n t he pr ogr am sel ectt hei row n dat es of s ervi ce, butm us thave thei rs ervi ce c o m p lete d w ith in six tyd a y s o f th e ir a d m in istra tiv e h e a rin g . If a n in d iv id u a l w e re to advi s e thathe ors he had a m edi cal conce r n, the off i ce w oul d r equi r e hi m t o del i ver m e d ica l d o c u m e n tatio n n o tin g h is re stric tio n s, w h ich c o u ld trig g e r a n o th e r m o re su itab le3

a ss ig n m e n t. In late Ju ly2 0 0 6 , M r. M arv el co n tacted O m lor, the d ir ec tor o f th e D elaw are C ount yC om m uni t ySer vi ces D epart m ent , and s el ect ed J ul y31 and A ugus t1, 2006 as t he d a tes th a t h e w o u ld p e rf o rm th e 1 6 h o u rs o f

c o m m u n ityse rv ice w o rk h e w a s re q u ire d to compl et e. M r . M arvel i nform ed O m l orthathe w as empl oy ed as a cr ane ope r at or . O m l or d id n o t a s k a b o u t n o r d id M r. M a rv e l v o lu n te e r a n yin f o rm a tio n a b o u t h is m e d ic a l h is to ry. O m lor t o ld M r. M arv el t o rep o rtat 7:3 0 a.m . o n the f ir st da te, d resse d fo r th e w ea ther, w ea ri n g w o rk g lov es a n d p rep are d to p erf o rm labo r. Form ul t i pl e y ear s pr i ort o t he t i m e per i od i n ques t i on, M r . M arvel had bee n t r eat ed forhi gh bl ood pr es s ur e byhi s fami l yphy s i ci an. D ur i ng the s um m erof 2006 he w a s ta k in g c a rd iac m e d ica tio n to b o th c o n tro l h is b lo o d p re ss u re a n d lo w e r h is chol es t er ol , and t ook a dai l yas pi r i n as w el l . A ccor di ng t o M r s . M arvel , how ever , he had n e v e r e x p e ri e n c e d a n yd ir e c t p ro b le m s w ith h is h e a rt . T he w eatheron J ul y31 and A ugus t1, 2006 w as extr emel yhot . I n fac t , the N at i onal W eatherSer vi ce i s s ued an Exces s i ve H eatW arni ng forD el aw ar e C ount yfor t hos e dat es , as t he hea ti ndex val ues r eac hed 110. U pon r epor t i ng, M r . M arvel s poke w i t h M i cun, t he C om m uni t ySer vi ce Supervi s or . A ccor di ng t o M i cun, aft eral l the w o rke rs w ere ch ec k ed in, he a sk ed if an y o n e h ad co n stru cti o n ex p erien ce sinc e the re w er e uni on br i ckl ay er s on s i t e thatneede d as s i s t ance . Fourvol unt eer s s t epped f orw ar d, inclu d ing M r. M arv el, w h o ind icated that h e w o rke d o n a c ran e in P h il ad elph ia. M r.4

M arvel s t at ed t o M i cun thathe vol unt eer ed t o do cons t ruct i on beca us e he ha d exper i ence i n t hatar ea, and pr efe rr ed t o s t ayon s i t e r atherthan goi ng outt o pi ck up tr as h. O n J ul y31, 2006, M r . M arvel s penthi s daypas s i ng ci nderbl ocks fr om a pal et t e on s c a f f o ld in g th a t w a s tw e n ty f e e t h ig h to th e u n io n w o rk e rs w h o w e re la y in g th e b lo c k s . H e di d s o i n a part i al l ys haded a r ea, and he a nd hi s co- w or ker s w er e pr ovi ded a f i veg all o n jug fil led w ith ice w ater, w h ich w as su ff ici en t t o lastthro u g h the d ay . T h eyw ere al so given several breaks t hroug ho ut the d ay , as need ed. M r. M arvel com plet ed the fi rs t dayof the A R D s ervi ce w or k w i t houti nci dent . A thom e thateveni ng, he t ol d hi s w i fe t hathi s s houl der s w er e verys or e, t hathe w as exhaus t ed, and furt hercompl ai ned about havi ng t o w eara s car f overhi s fac e due t o al l the dus t . H e di d not , how ever , expr es s any c o n c e r n a b o u tr e tu r n i n g t o t h e s a m e w o r k th e n e x td a y. O n A ugus t1, 2006, M r . M arvel r epor t ed fordutyand aga i n vol unt eer ed t o do t he s ame w or k he had done t he pr evi ous day . A ppr oxi m at el ythr ee hour s i nt o t he day , one of M r. M a rv e l’s f

e llo w lab o re rs n o tice d th a t h e d id n o t w a n t w a ter , w a s n o t lo o k in g w e ll, and s eemed fl us hed. Shor t l yt her eaf t er , M r . M arvel col l aps ed. M i cun bega n per form i ng C PR on M r . M arvel and as ked the otherm en t o w i pe M r . M arvel ’ s ches t . O ne of the fe ll o w labo rers ca ll ed h is w ife, a n u rse, w h o ad v ised them to p u t i ce u n d er M r. M arv el’s arm pi t s and an i ce w at er - s oaked s hi r tar ound hi s neck. M i cun ca l l ed an i ndi vi dual i n t he offi ce a nd as ked hi m t o cal l 911 and t o not i fythe EM T s thatC PR w as i n pr ogr es s . T he pol i ce a nd par amedi cs arr i ved af t erfourt o fi ve cy cl es of C PR had bee n per form ed and5

w i t hi n appr oxi m at el yfi ve t o t en mi nut es aft erM r . M arvel col l aps ed. T he par amedi cs inse rt ed an air tu b e d o w n M r. M arv el’s th roa t and h o o k ed h im u p to a h ea rtm o n it o r. M r. M arvel had a he ar tbeatand w as br eathi ng w hen he w as pl ace d on the ambul ance and take n to the h o sp it al. U n fo rtu n ately , w ith in f ift ee n m inu tes M icun an d the o thers w ere in f o rm e d th a t M r. M a rv e l h a d b e e n d e c la re d d e a d o n a rr iv a l a t th e h o s p ita l. Dr . Ro s e n , t h e e me r g e n c yr o o m p h y s i c i a n , c o n c l u d e d th a tM r . M a r v e l d i e d f r o m a heartat t ack thatw as notheat - r el at ed. Subse quent l y , the D el aw ar e C ount yM edi cal E x a m in e r, D r. H e llm a n , ca lled M rs. M a rv e l an d in d ica ted th a t h e w a s c o m f o rta b le w ith t he tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s det erm i nat i on thatthe ca us e of M r . M arvel ’ s death w as car di acr el at ed and thati toccurr ed w i t h exert i on. A n aut ops yof M r . M arvel r evea l ed thathi s l eft a n ter io r a rte ryw a s n in e ty -f iv e p e rc e n t clo se d a n d h is rig h t an ter io r a rte ryw a s n in e ty percent cl osed. Th e autopsyreporti nd i cat ed thatM r. M arvel ’s death occu rr ed as a cons equenc e of a r t er i os cl er ot i c cor onaryar t erydi s eas e, w i t h hi s t oryof hyper t ens i on, associ at i on w i t h ex ert i on . T here w as no f i nd i ng of an yheat- rel at ed cau ses. II. M r s . M arvel , i ndi vi dual l yand as the exe cutr i x forthe es t at e of he rhus band, init iat ed this acti o n o n N o v em b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 7 . B o th C o u n ts of the C o m p lai n t assert c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms u n d e r4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 . Co u n tI a l l e g e s th a tOml o ra n d M i c u m, a c tin g u n d e r c o lo r o f

sta te a u th o rity , d e p riv e d M r. M a rv e l o f h is c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, i n c lu d in g h is lib e rtyin ter e sts in : (1 ) b o d ilysa f e ty6

w hi l e per form i ng comm uni t ys ervi ce; ( 2) fr eedom fr om depr i vat i on of l i fe w i t houtdue p ro c e ss o f

law ; an d (3 ) a n e x p e c tatio n o f m in im a l sta n d a rd s f

o r th e sa f

e ty , h e a lth , w e llb e in g a n d se c u rityo f

c o m m u n ityse rv ice w o rk e rs. C o u n t II a lleg e s th a t D e law a re C o u n ty v io late d M r. M a rv e l’s rig h ts u n d e r th e F o u rth , F if th , E ig h th , an d F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n ts byfai l i ng t o devel op ori m pl ementpol i ci es orpr ocedur es r egar di ng the medi cal s cr eeni ng of A R D appl i cant s orcomm uni t ys ervi ce w orker s ; fai l i ng t o abi de bythe exc es s heat w arn ing ; fail ing to g ive c o n side rati o n to the ex tr em e w ea ther c o n d it ion s o r a w o rke r’s a g e ; f a ili n g to p ro v id e a d e q u a te m e d ica l as sis tan c e to M r. M a rv e l; an d f a ili n g to p ro p e rly t r ai n, s upervi s e, and moni t orM r . M arvel dur i ng hi s comm uni t ys ervi ce. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the appe l l ees ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s underFeder al R ul e of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) on A pr i l 10, 2008. T her eaf t er , byM emora ndum and O r der d ated Ju n e 3 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rtg ran ted th e a p p ell ee s’ m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent . M r s . M arvel appea l s t hi s rul i ng. III . W e h av e jurisdicti o n o v er this ap p ea l un d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d ex erc ise p lena ry re v iew o v e r a d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to g ra n t su m m a ryju d g m e n t. S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is appr opr i at e w hen “the pl eadi ngs , t he di s covery , and di s cl os ur e mat er i al s on fi l e, and any aff i davi t s s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movant i s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” F. R . C . P. 56( c) . I f ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue a s t o a n yma t e r i a l f

a c ta n d t h e mo v i n g p a r t yi s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g me n ta s a ma t t e ro f l a w, we7

aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng. I V. S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 , the p re m ise o f b o th c o u n ts o f

M rs. M a rv e l’s C o m p lain t, “is n o t a so u rc e o f su b sta n tiv e rig h ts” b u t m e re lyp ro v id e s “ a m e th o d f o r v in d ica tin g f

e d e ra l rig h ts el s ew her e conf

err ed. ” B akerv. McC ol l an , 443 U . S. 137, 144 n. 3 ( 1979) . T o s t at e a caus e of a ct i on unders ect i on 1983, a pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e both t hat( 1) the defe ndant s act ed undercol orof s t at e l aw ; and ( 2) thei ract i ons depr i ved the pl ai nt i ff of ri g h ts s e c u re d b yth e C o n s titu tio n o r f e d e ra l s ta tu te s . A m . M

f rs . Mut . I

ns . C o. v. Sul l i van , 526 U . S. 40, 49- 50 ( 1999) . T he part i es do notdi s put e thatthe appe l l ees w er e ac t i ng u n d er c o lor o f state law ; th u s the an aly sis tu rns o n w h ethe r th eir acti o n s d ep ri v ed M r. M arvel of h i s const i tuti on al ri gh t s. C ountI of the C om pl ai nti s bas ed on a s t at e- cr eat ed dange rtheory . T o es t abl i s h a stat e-c rea ted d an g er c lai m , the f o ll o w ing esse n ti al elem en ts m u st be m et: “(1 ) th e h arm ul t i m at el ycaus ed w as for es eea bl e and f ai r l ydi r ect ; ( 2) a s t at e ac t oract ed w i t h a degr ee of cul pabi l i t yt hats hocks t he cons ci ence ; ( 3) a r el at i ons hi p betw een the s t at e and the pl ai nt i ff e xi s t ed s uch thatt he pl ai nt i ff w as a for es eea bl e vi ct i m of the def endant ’ s act s , or a mem berof a di s cr et e cl as s of per s ons s ubj ect ed t o t he pot ent i al harm br oughtaboutby t he s t at e’ s act i ons , as oppos ed t o a mem berof the publ i c i n gener al ; and ( 4) a s t at e ac t or aff i r m at i vel yus ed hi s orherauthor i t yi n a w aythatcr eat ed a da ngert o t he ci t i zen ort hat r ender ed the ci t i zen mor e vul ner abl e t o dangerthan had the s t at e notact ed atal l . ” B r ightD r eadf ul as t he fa ct s ar e, i ti s w el l t o not e thatM r . M arvel ’ s part i ci pat i on i n t he 2 p r o g r a m wa s e n t i r e l yv o l u n t a r y . Hi s e l e c t i o n t o e n g a g e i n h e a v yl a b o rp l a c e d s o me re s p o n s ib ility u p o n M r. M a rv e l to k n o w h is o w n lim ita tio n s a n d d is c lo s e th e m to M ic u n . M o reo v er, i t app ea rs th at no t eve n M r. M arv el kn ew that h is pre-e x ist ing co n d it ion s w ere s o gr ave thathe w as vi r tual l ya ca r di ac a cci dentw ai t i ng t o happen. T hus , even i f M i cun h a d a sk e d M r. M a rv e l ab o u t an ylim itatio n s, it is h ig h lyu n lik e lyth a t M r. M a rv e l w o u ld h a v e r e s p o n d e d a f

f i r m a t i v e l y. 8 v . W e stm o re la n d

C o u n ty , 4 4 3 F .3 d 2 7 6 , 2 8 1 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 )( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T h e f irst e lem e n t o f

th e sta te- c re a ted d a n g e r te st re q u ire s th a t th e h a rm u lti m a tely c a u s e d w a s a f

o re s e e a b le a n d f

a ir ly d ir e c t r e s u lt o f

th e s ta te ’s a c tio n s . See M ors e v. L o w e r Me rio n Sc h . D ist. , 1 3 2 F . 3 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 8 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). W h il e the D istri ct C o u rt concl uded thata r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d fi nd harm t o M r . M arvel for es eea bl e bas ed on the co m b ination o f th e e x ce ssive h ea t on A u g u st 1, 20 0 6 an d M r. M arv el’s ag e (5 9 y ea rs ol d) , w e ar e nots o per s uaded. A bs entanyi ndi cat i on thatM r . M arvel s uffe r ed fr om any pr e- exi s t i ng heal t h condi t i on, and i ndeed no s uch i ndi cat i on w as obvi ous , w e ca nnotfi nd i tfor es eea bl e thatM arvel m i ghtbe harm ed byper form i ng l abori n t he condi t i ons on A ugus t1, 2006. 2 T h e se c o n d e lem e n t re q u ire s th a t th e sta te a c to r a c ted w ith a d e g re e o f c u lp a b ili ty t hat“s hocks t he cons ci ence . ” B r ight , 443 F. 3d at281. I n m aki ng thi s det erm i nat i on, t he d istric t co u rt m u st lo o k to th e f a c ts o f e a c h in d iv id u a l ca se to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e sta te a c to r’ s c o n d u c t is in d e e d c o n s c ie n c e s h o c k in g . See Sanf or d v. St i l es , 456 F. 3d 298, 309- 1 0 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). A s a f o re sta ted , the d a yo f

M r. M a rv e l’s d e a th w a s e x tre m e lyh o t; h o w ev er, i t can n o t be c o n clud ed that the w ea ther it self f o rec lose d labo r i n total. F u rth er,9

a n d t o r e i t e r a t e , d e s p i t e t h e we a t h e ra n d a tl e a s ts o me l i mi t e d k n o wl e d g e o f h i s o wn m edi cat i ons and condi t i on, M r . M arvel vol unt eer ed forcons t ruct i on w or k notonl yon t he fi r s tday , butr etur ned on the s econd da yas w el l . A s not ed, the appe l l ees neverhad any know l edge of

M r . M arvel ’ s m edi cat i ons and medi cal tr eatm ent . T heythus cannotbe cons i der ed t o have i gnor ed a know n r i s k t o M r . M arvel , norcoul d i tbe expe ct ed thatt hey s houl d have pr event ed M arvel fr om vol unt eer i ng forcons t ruct i on l aborthatday . B as ed on t he for egoi ng, w e s i m pl ycannotfi nd thatthe appe l l ees ’ conducts hocked the c o n sc ien c e . T h u s, M rs. M a rv e l’s c laim f a ils o n th is e lem e n t. M r s . M arvel i s al s o unabl e t o es t abl i s h t he thi r d and fi nal el ementof the s t at ecr eat ed dange rt es t . U ndert hi s el ement , a pl ai nt i ff musts how that“a s t at e ac t or aff i r m at i vel yus ed hi s orherauthor i t yi n a w aythatcr eat ed a da ngert o t he ci t i zen ort hat r ender ed the ci t i zen mor e vul ner abl e t o dangerthan had the s t at e notact ed atal l . ” B r ight , 4 4 3 F .3 d a t 2 8 1 . A s ta te a c to r’ s f a ilu re to a c t d o e s n o t s a tis f yth is e le m e n t. Id . a t 2 8 2 . Fur t her , a pl ai nt i ff mustes t abl i s h a di r ectcaus al r el at i ons hi p betw een the af fi r m at i ve ac t a n d th e p la in tif

f ’s h a rm . Id . a t 2 8 1 . I ti s evi dent , bas ed on ourr evi ew of the r ecor d, thatM r s . M arvel has not i dent i fi ed anyaff

i r m at i ve ac t i on on t he partof the appe l l ees thatharm ed hi m orexpos ed M r . M a r v e l t o d a n g e r . No to n l yd i d M r . M a r v e l v o l u n t e e rg e n e r a l l yf o rth e ARD pr ogr am, butas not ed he a l s o vol unt eer ed s peci fi cal l yforhi s dat es of s ervi ce a nd the type o f lab o r he u n d ertoo k w h il e c o m p let ing h is co m m u n ityserv ice ti m e. A s n o ted, a f ail u re10

t o act w i l l no tsuffice t o est abli sh a sect i on 19 83 viol at i on . B ut even i f i tdid, M rs . M arvel s eeks t o i m pos e upon appe l l ees w hati n eff ectw oul d be a c om pr ehens i ve medi cal sc re e n in g p ro to c o l f

o r a n y o n e w h o e lec ts to p a rticip a te in c o m m u n ityse rv ice re late d to t he A R D pr ogr am. C l ear l yt hi s i s an i nt ens i ve and c os t - pr ohi bi t i ve s t ep thatw oul d defe at th e p u rp o s e o f

o f f e ri n g th is typ e o f

f a s t- tr a c k A R D o p p o rt u n ity to o f f e n d e rs . V . C ountI I of M r s . M arvel ’ s C om pl ai ntas s ert s thatthe D efe ndantC ount yof D e law a re v io late d c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts in v a rio u s w a y . H o w e v e r, all o f th e se c laim s f

a il bas ed on D el aw ar e C ount y ’ s i m m uni t ypur s uantt o Monel lv. D ept . of Soc. Ser v. , 43 6 U. S. 658 ( 1978) . U ndert he di ct at es of Mo n e ll , a m u n ici p ali tyca n n o t be h eld liable u n d er § 1 9 8 3 o n a re s p o n d e a t s u p e ri o r t h e o ry. Id . at 6 9 0 -6 9 1 . T o h o ld m u n icip a lit ies liab le under§ 1983, a pl ai nt i ff musti dent i fyei t hera “pol i cy , s t at ement , or di nance r egul at i on or deci s i on offi ci al l yadopt ed and pr om ul gat ed bythatbody ’ s offi cer s , ” or“cons t i tut i onal depr i vat i ons vi s i t ed pur s uantt o governm ent al ‘ cus t om ’ even though s uch cus t om has not r ece i ved form al appr oval t hr ough t he body ’ s offi ci al deci s i on m aki ng channe l s . ” Id . A ddi t i onal l y , t her e mustbe a s how i ng of ca us at i on. A pl ai nt i ff “ m us ts how thatthe m u n icip a l ac tio n w a s ta k e n w ith th e re q u isite d e g re e o f c u lp a b ili tya n d m u st d e m o n stra te a di r ectcaus al l i nk betw een the muni ci pal act i on and the depr i vat i on of fe der al r i ght s . ” Bd . o f th e Co u n t

y o f Co mm’ rs o

f Br y a n Co u n t

y v . Br o wn , 5 2 0 U . S . 3 9 7 , 4 0 4 (19 9 7 ). T her e i s l i t t l e thatw e ca n add t o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s compre hens i ve opi ni on on11

t hi s poi nt ; t her efor e w e s hal l onl yendea vort o s um m ar i ze i ther ei n. N one of the gr ounds fo r M rs. M arv el’s claim s ag ains t th e C o u n tyo f D elaw are is viab le un d er Mo n e ll . F irst, s ever al of hercl ai m s per t ai n t o act i ons bythe C ount yof D el aw ar e thatoccurr ed af t erM r. M arv el’s de ath, w h ich o b v iou slyca n n o t be a ttri b u ted to an all eg ed d ep ri v ati o n o f M r. M arv el’s co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts. N ex t, M rs. M arv el ha s fa il ed to es tablish tha t th ere w ere any‘ cus t om s ’ or‘ pol i ci es ’ of the D el aw ar e C ount yA R D pr ogr am t hatcaus ed a depr i vat i on of M r . M arvel ’ s fede r al r i ght s , s uch as r equi r i ng w or ker s t o l abori n di r ect su n lig h t o r f

a ili n g to g iv e th e m w a ter . F in a llya n d sig n if ica n tly , M rs. M a rv e l h a s f a iled to est abli sh t hat a pat t ern of v i olat i on s exi st ed such t o alertthe C ou ntyof a n eed to est abli sh a po l i cyt o p reventa dep ri vati on of ri gh t s. V I. F o r a ll o f

th e f o re g o in g re a so n s, w e f

in d th a t th e a p p e llee s w e re e n tit led to sum m aryj ud gm ent on bo t h clai m s ass ert ed b yM rs . M arvel . H er husban d’s death w as m ani fes t l ya tr agi c occ ur r ence , butnotone forw hi ch the appe l l ees ar e l i abl e. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.