United State s District Judge, WesternDistrict of Texas, sitting bydesi gn ation. * 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10258

KE VI N S CO T T P ET ER S ON P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. CI TYO F FO RT W O RT H , TEX AS D efen da n t- A pp el l ee

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c tof Texas

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

J u dg e, J O L L Y , C i rcui tJ u dg e, a n d M O N T A L V O , D i st ri ct * Ju dg e. E
. G R A D YJO L L Y , C i rcui tJu dg e: Thi s c as e , b r o ugh ta s a § 19 83 ac t i o n, pr e s e nt s t he que s t i o n w he t he rt he C i t y of F ort W ort h i n curs m u n i ci pa l l i a b il ityun der Mo ne l lv . D e p’ tof So c i al S e r v s . fo rth e a lle g e d e x c e s s iv e fo r c e o f tw o o f its p o lic e o ffic e r s . S ee436 U
. S. 658 ( 197 8)

. K evi n P et erson, w h o ha s al l eged t h at he w as ser i ou sl y i nj u red by F ort W ort h pol i ce of

f i cers du ri n g t h e course of an arres t , ha s not sued t h e of f i cers i ndivi dua l l y. I ns t e ad , he f i l e d t hi s a c t i o n a gai ns tt he Ci t y o f Fo r tW o r t h,
a lle g in gth a t o ffic e r s v io la te d h is F o u r th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts b yu n la w fu lly United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

17, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10258

2 det ai ni ng hi m and usi ng exc es sive f or c e t o r es t r ai n hi m . The C i t y co unte r s t hat th e d e te n tio n a n d fo r c e w e r e re a s o n a b le u n d e rth e F o u r th A m en d m en t, an dtha t, i n an y even t , i ti s n ot l i able becau se P et erson cann otshow t h at a pol i cy, pract i ce, or c u st om of

t h e C i t y w as t h e m ovin gfor ce behi n d the vi ol ati on . Th e di st ri ct court gran t ed su m m ary j u dg m en tf or t h e C i t y, f

i n d i n g n ei t h er a vi ol ati on nor
m u n i ci pa ll i a b il ity . W e agree t h at t h e evi den ce does not sup port a cl ai m of
u n l aw f u ldetenti on , bu tconcl u de there i s s u ffi ci en tevi den ce t o est abli sh
exc es sive f

or c e. I n shor t , i f

Pet er so n h a d s u ed t he o f f i c er s, he w oul d have had
a col orabl e cl ai m . N on et h el ess, h e chose n ot t o do s o an d because th e evi den ce w i l lnot su pp ortm u n i ci pa lli abil i t y f or the i n di vi du alm i scondu ctof t h e of f i cers , s u mma r yj u d g me n tw a s p r o p e ra n d w e a f f i r m. I. W e b e g in w ith a b r ie f s u m m a r yo f th e fa c ts , st a tin gt h e m m o s t fa v o r a b ly t o Pe t e r s o n. O n t h e n i g h t o f A u g u s t1 4 , 2 0 0 5 , P e t e r s o n a n d h i s w i fe J o d ij o i n e d s o me fr ie n d s fo ra b ir th d a yp a r ty a t R i s c k y ’ s B a r -B -Q u e in F o r t W o r th ’ s h is to r ic

“ St o c ky ar ds ” di s t r i c t
. The y pa r ke d t he i re xt e nd e d

- c a b p i c k

- u p t r u c k i n a pa r ki ng lo tn e a ra n e s t a b li s h m e n tc a ll e d B il lyB o b ’s T e x a s , t h e s e lf-p r o c la im e d w o r ld ’s l ar ges thonky- t onk. They had di nner atR i sc ky’ s B ar - B

- Q ue and atabo ut10: 00 p .m . w a lk e d o v e rt o a d a n c e clu b , T h e C a n tin a C a d illa c . T h e r e P e te r s o n h a d s ix t o e i ghtbe er s; Jo dihad t hre e orfour . Th ey st ayed unti lt he c l ub c l os ed at2: 00
a . m . B eca u se th eyw ere i n tox i ca ted , the y d ecide d n ot to driv e h om e b u t t o i n st ead sl eep i n t h ei r t ruck. P et erson cr aw l ed i n t o t h e back, an d Jod icr aw l ed in to th e fr o n t. AStockyard s s ecuri t y gu ard l aterobserved t w o per s o ns s l eepi n g i n a t ruck
n ea r B il l y B ob’ s Tex as an d cal l ed the F ortW ort h P ol i ce D epa rt m en t
. O f f i cers Sam ant ha H o r ne ra nd Ro ge rBal l ar d ar r ive d att he sc e ne atabo ut5: 00 a. m . a nd th e r e th e yfo u n d th e P e te r s o n s s le e p in g .N o. 08- 10258

3 O f f i c e rH o r ne rt r i e d t o w ak e Pe t e r s o n up . Ac c o r di n gt o O f f i c e rH o r ne r , s he
o pe ne d t he unl o c ke d r e ardo o ra nd s ho o k Pe t e r s o n’ s l e g, b uthe di d no tr e s po nd. S h e t h en t ap ped her baton on P et erson’ s st ernu m ; h e kic ked at her and t ol d h er t o l eave hi m al on e. H e bega n t o doze, an d s h e reached i n t o t h e cab. H e sw att ed at her, an d sh e t ol d h i m t h at s h e w as a pol i ce of f i cer an d t h at h e need ed to get
ou tof t h e t ruck. W h en h e bega n t o doze agai n , she grabbed hi s arm . Peters on t hen h i theron t he f or ear m . O f

f i c erH or neral er t ed O f f i c erB al l ar d t hat Pet e r s o n ha d hi the r , a nd a s ke d f o r hi s as s i s t anc e i n ge t t i ng Pet e r s o n o uto f t he t r uc k. Pet e r s o n t e s t i f i e d t hata tt hi s po i nthe w o ke up. H e r e c al l e d: Th e f i r stthi ng I rem em berupon w aki ng up w as I w as be i ng dr ug o uto f

t he t r uc k b y m y c l o t he s . I w as l ay i ng on m y bac k. I ac t ual l y hi tt he gr ound

. T h e do orw as o p e n e d , a n d t h e yd r u gme o u t
. I w a s s l i d i n go n my b a c k o n t h e g r o u n d ; a n d I h a d t w o p o l i c e o f f i c e r s o n me w rest l i n g m e t o t h e groun d .

. . . A n d then t h ey rol l ed m e o ve ra nd p utm y hand s b e hi n d m y ba c k a nd p ut cuffs on m e. Pet er so n st at ed t hataf t erh e w as handcuf

fed t he o f

f i c er s pul l ed hi m up by t he c uf fs ’c hai n: T h e yj u s tj e r k e d me u p o f f t h e g r o u n d a n d

. . . s p u n me arou n d [ and ] s l am m e d m e up ag ai ns tt he b e d o f t he tr u c k

. . . . [T ]h e r e w a s n ’ t a n ys tr u g g le w ith m e . . . . A nd t hen I not i c ed hey , t hes e a r e c ops . . . . I di dn’ ts ay a n yth i n g a t t h a t po i n t. Acc o r di ng t o Pe t e r s o n, O f f i c e rBal l ar d was c ur s i ng athi m w he n he de l ive r e d aha r d k ne e s t r i ke t o Pe t e r s o n’ s t hi gh:

T h e m al e of

f i cer w as sc ream i n g i n m y ear. H e w as on m y l e f t , a nd h e w as s ay i ng yo u m o t he r f uc ke r . And he reared back an d k n eed m e in the thi gh w i t h hi s kn ee .

. . . [W ] hen he di d i t , I cr i nged. I go ugh,

. . . and I w asN o. 08- 10258

Officer Ballard de nie s thath e c ur s edat P eterso n and delivered a knee strike to 1 P ete rson’sthigh

. Hest ate d th at P et er so n’sres is tancewa s minim al, an d th at akneestrike was unnece ssary . O f f icer Horner, however, ob served the knee strike and called it “an approved di straction technique.” For the purpose s of its motion for su mmary ju dgment, the City conc eded that Officer B all ard delivered a knee strike to Peterso n’s thigh. 4 . . . i m m e d ia te lye n r a g e d b e c a u s e it w a s to ta lly u n n ecess ary f

or hi m t o beat on m e w h en I w as i n cuf fs. 1 M e a n w h il e , J o d i id e n t if ie d P e t e r s o n a s h e rh u s b a n d . A tO ff ic e rH o r n e r ’s i nst r uct i on, Jo dir em ai ned s eat ed i n t he c ab. O f f i cer B al l ard col l ected P e terson’ s bi l l f ol d an d l i cense. A f t er a back groun d check produ ced no record, O f f i cer B al l ard u n cuff

ed an d rel eased Pet er so n. Pet er so n st at ed t hatt he w hol e t i m e hi s l eg w as poundi ng. T h e P e t e r s o n s g o tb a c k i n t o t h e i rt r u c k a n d w a i t e d u n t i la b o u t7 : 0 0 a . m. to d r iv e h o m e . W h e n th e y g o t th e r e , P e te r s o n u n d r e s s e d a n d d is c o v e r e d th a t h is l e g ne e de d m e di c alt r e at m e n t
. A tt he ho s pi t al , do c t o r s di ag no s e d hi m w i t h a
r upt ure d fem or alar t er y. Th e i nj ury r equi r ed t w o sur ger i es and a hos pi t als t ay th a t la s te d a lm o s t t w o w e e k s . Pet e r s o n f

i l e d t hi s § 1 98 3 ac t i o n a ga i ns to nl y t he Ci t y o f Fo r tW o r t h,
c h o o s in gn o t t o s u e O ffic e r s H o r n e ra n d B a lla r d , w h o m h e a lle g e d v io l a te d h is Fourt h A m endm entr i ght s by un l aw f ul l y de t ai ni ng hi m and by us i ng exc es sive f orce, speci f

i cal l y t h e kn ee st ri ke, t o rest rai n h i m . T h e di st ri ct court concl u ded t hatt he de t e n t i on was l awf ula nd t hatt he f

o r c e w as no te xc e s s ive und e rt he
c i r c um st ance s. The di st r i c tc our tal so c onc l uded t hat , e ve n if the of f i c er s had vi ol ated P et erson’ s r i gh t s, t h e C i t y w as not l i able becau se P et erson di d n otshow t hata po l i cy, pr ac t i c e , o rc us t o m o f t he Ci t y w as t he m o vi ng f o r c e b e hi nd t he
o f f i c e r s ’c o nduc t
. The di s t r i c tc o ur te nt e r e d s um m ar y j udg m e ntfo rt he C i t y, a nd P eters on a p p ea l s. F or reas on s w e exp l a i n be l ow , w e fi n d su ff i ci en t evide n ce to
e s t ab l i s h hi s ex c e s s ive f o r c e c l ai m . N e ve r t he l e s s , b e c aus e w e c o nc l ude t hatt heN o. 08- 10258

5 recor d evi den ce w i l lnot s u pp ortm u n i ci pa ll i abil i t y f or t h e a ll eged m i scondu ct of t he i ndi vi dualof

f i c er s, w e a f

f i r m j udgm entf

ort he C i t y. II. W e rev i ew the distri ct c o u r t’s gra n t of su m m a ryj u d gm en t de no vo , a p p ly in gth e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a r d s a s t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t. Uni t e d St at e s v . Cor pus , 49 1 F. 3d2 05 , 2 09 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 7)

. Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e onl y “ i f t he pl ead i n gs, t h e di scovery and di s c l o s ure m ater i al s on f i l e, an d an y af

f i da vi t s s h ow th a t t h e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n ym a te r ia l fa c t a n d th a t t h e m o v a n t is
en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6(c )

. I n de t e r m i ni ng
w he t he ra g e nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m at e r i alfac t ex i s t s , w e m us tv i e w t he
e v id e n c e in t h e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e n o n m o v in gp a r ty
. Cor pus , 491 F. 3d at 20 9. The no nm o vi ng pa r t y “ m us ti de nt i f y s pe c i f i c e vi de nc e i n t he r e c o r d a nd
a r tic u la te th e m a n n e rin w h ic h th a t e v id e n c e s u p p o r ts th a t p a r ty ’ s cla im .” Joh n son v. D eep EastT ex. R eg’lNarcot i cs Traf f i cki ng T ask F orce , 379 F. 3d 293, 30 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4)

. The i de nt i f i e d e vi de nc e “ m us tb e s uf f i c i e ntt o s us t ai n a fin d in gin fa v o ro f th e n o n m o v a n t o n a ll is s u e s a s to w h ic h th e n o n m o v a n t w o u ld b ea r the bu rd en of p roo f a t t ri a l

. ” Id

. W e a d d r e s s th e th r e s h o ld is s u e o f w h e t h e ro ff ic e r s v io la t e d P e t e r s o n ’s Fourt h A m endm entr i ght s bef or e w e a ddre ss t he i ss ue o f m uni c i pall i abi l i t y. III. T h e F o u r th A m e n d m e n t g u a ra n tees th e rig h t t o b e fr e e fr o m u n r e a s o n a b le searches an d sei zures. “ T h e F ou rt h A m en dm en tdoes not prosc ribe al lst atein iti a t ed searches an d sei zures; i tm erel y proscr ibes t h ose w h i ch are
unreas onabl e. ” S ee, e. g. , Flo r i da v

. Ji m e no , 5 00 U
. S. 2 48 , 2 50 ( 19 91 ) (c i t i ng Il l i n oi s v. R od rigu ez , 4 9 7 U
. S

. 1 7 7 (19 9 0 ))

. T h e t ou ch ston e o f th e F ou rth A m e n d m e n t is th u s re a s o n a b le n e s s . I d. (c i t i ng K

atzv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 3 89 U
. S. 34 7, 3 60 ( 19 67 ) )

. W e m e as ur e re as o nab l e ne s s “ i n obj e c t ive t e r m s by e xa m i ni ng th e totali ty of t h e circu m stan ces.” O h io v
. R o b in ette , 5 1 9 U .S . 3 3 , 3 9 (1 9 9 6 ).N o. 08- 10258

6 Pet e r s o n a l l e g e s t ha t o f f i c e r s v i o l a t e d hi s Fo ur t h Am e nd m e nt r i g ht s by
u n l a w full y d eta i n i n g h i m an d u singex cess ive f orce to restr a in h i m . B oth
u n la w fu l d e t e n t io n a n d e x c e s s iv e fo r c e im p li c a t e th e F o u r t h A m e n d m e n t ’s p r o s c r ip tio n a g a in s t u n r e a s o n a b le s e i z u r e s . S ee T er ry v. O h io , 392 U
. S. 1, 16
n .1 6 (1 9 6 8 ) (“[ W ]h e n e v e ra p o lic e o ffic e ra c c o s ts a n in d iv id u a l a n d r e s tr a in s h is fr e e d o m to w a lk a w a y , h e h a s ‘ s e iz e d ’th a t p e r s o n .”). A. W e f i r s ta ddr e s s t he a l l e ge d un l awf ulde t e nt i o n. P e te r s o n a r g u e s th e o ffic e r s h a d n o la w fu l ju s tific a tio n fo re n te r in gh is t r uc k and de t ai ni ng hi m be c aus e t he y hadno r e as o nab l e s us pi c i o n t o b e l i e ve he had co m m i t t ed a c r i m e. H e c ont ends t he o f f i c er s ac t ed o n t he m er e “ neut r al fact s” th at t h e P et ersons w ere parked nea r dri n king est abli shm en t s and w ere asl eep i n t h ei r vehi cl e. Peters on a rgues t h at those neu t ralfact s di d n otsup port
reasona bl e suspi ci on an d, w i t h ou t i t , t h e of f i cers h ad no l aw f

u lj u st i f i cat i on f

or d e t a i n i n gh i m. The Ci t y c o u n t ers, a nd t he di s t r i c tc o ur the l d, t hatt he o f f i c e r s ’a c t i o ns w ere r eason able i n t h e l i gh tof t h e ir a rticu l ated concerns f or t h e P et ersons’
sa fet y. Th e C i t y poi nt s t o depos i t i on t es t i m ony i n w hi c h t he of f i c er s st at ed t hat t he y w e r e co nc e r ne d f o rt he P e t e r s o ns ’sa fe t y. O f f i c e rH o r ne rt e s t i f

i e d t hats he t ri ed to w ak e P et erson n otb ecau se sh e su spect ed cri m i n ala ct ivi t y bu tbecau se

“ forhi s s a fe t y” s he n e e d e d “ t o g e tc o m p l i a nc e . ” Of f i c e rBa l l a r d t e s t i f

i e d t hat th ey “ di dn’ tknow i f

ei t herone ort w o o f t hem w er e s i m pl y i nt oxi c at ed o rhad b ee n h i t i n the h ea d an d l eft th ere , rob b ed

. ” W e fac e he r e t he kin d o f of f i c er - c i t i ze n enc ount ert hati s c ont r ol l ed by T er ry v. O h io , 39 2 U
. S. 1 ( 19 68 )

. I n T err y , the Sup r em e Courtr ec ogni ze d t hat

“ [ e] n coun t ers are i n i t i ated by t h e pol i ce f or a w i de va ri et y of

pu rposes, som e of
w h i ch are w h oll y u n related to a d esire to p r o s e c u te cri m e.” Id

. a t 1 3
. T err y i t sel f add ress ed the kind of i n f orm alof

f i cer- ci t i zen en coun t ers t h at ari se w h enN o. 08- 10258

7 o ffic e r s m a k e o n -th e -s p o t o b s e r v a tio n s th a t r e q u ir e im m e d ia te a c tio n . I d. at20. In a sse ssing th e reas on a b l en ess of su ch a cti on s, “the re i s ‘ n o read y test. ’” I d. at 2 1
. In s te a d , aco u r t m u s t “ ‘ fo c u s u p o n th e g o v e r n m e n ta l in te r e s t w h ic h a lle g e d ly j us t i f i e s o f f i c i ali nt r us i o n up o n t he c o ns t i t u t i o nal l y pr o t e c t e d i nt e r e s t s o f t he p riva te ci ti ze n . ’” I

d. at20- 21 ( quot i ng Ca m a rav. Mu n . C t. , 387 U
. S. 523, 536- 37 ( 19 67 ) )

. The o f

f i c e rm us tb e a bl e t o po i ntt o “ s pe c i f i c a nd a r t i c ul ab l e fac t s w hi c h, t ak e n t o ge t he rw i t h r at i o nali nfe r e nc e s f r o m t ho s e fac t s , rea s o nab l y w ar r ant th a t i n tru sion

. ” I

d. a t2 1. The c o ur tt he n a s ks : “ w o ul d t he fac t s av ai l ab l e t o t he
o ffic e ra t t h e m o m e n t o f th e s e iz u r e o rth e s e a r c h ‘ w a r r a n t am a n o f r e a s o n a b le
ca u ti on i n the be l i ef’tha t t h e a cti on tak en w a s ap p rop ri a te?” I d. a t 2 2
. I n o t he rw o r ds , a s w e ha ve pr e vi o us l y s t at e d: “W e m us ta t t e m ptt o put
ou rselves i n t h e shoes of a reasonab l e pol i ce of f i cer as he or sh e a p p ro ach es a g iv e n s itu a tio n a n d a s s e s s e s th e lik e lih o o d o f d a n g e rin a p a r tic u la rco n te x t.” Uni t e d St at e s v . Ri de au , 9 6 9 F .2d 1 5 7 2 , 1 5 7 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n b a n c). W e a gr e e w i t h t he di s t r i c tco ur tt hatt he det e nt i o n w as re as o nab l e . The of f i cers w ere r espon di n g t o a cal lt h e F ortW ort h P ol i ce D e p a rtm en trec eived fr o m a S to c k y a r d s s e c u r ityg u a rd

. T h e o ffic e r s o b s e r v e d tw o p e r s o n s , a p p a r e n tly
u n consci ou s, i n a t ruck. I tw as earl y i n t h e m orni n g. Th e doors t o t h e t ruck
w ere u n l ock ed

. T h e p erso n s w ere u n resp on sive to th e off i cers ’in i ti a lattem p ts t o w ak e t h em . Th e of f i cers ha d responsibi l i t i es f or the persons’safet y; itw as not ap pa r e ntw he t he rt he pe r s o ns “ w e r e s i m pl y i nt o xi c at e d o rha d b e e n hi ti n t he he ada nd l e f

tt he r e , r o bb e d. ” The o f f i c e r s t hus ha ve po i nt e d t o “ s pe c i f i c a nd
a rti cu l a b l e facts” t h a t reas on a b l y w a rra n ted th eir a cti on . W e th i n k the se facts cl earl y “ w arra n t a m a n of reasonab l e cauti on i n t h e bel i ef ” t h at t h e of

f i cers ’
a c tio n s w e r e a p p r o p r ia te , a n d t h u s c o n c lu d e t h is s e iz u r e w a s re a s o n a b le w ith in t he m eani ng of t he Fourt h A m endm ent
. A c c or di ngl y, Pet er so n’ s det ent i on w as
n o t u n la w fu l. B.N o. 08- 10258

8 W i t h r e s pe c tt o t he ex c e s s ive fo r c e c l ai m , Pe t e r s o n a r gue s t he kne e s t r i ke
us e d b y O f

f i c e rB al l ar d w as unnec e s s ar y andex c e s s ive . H e co nt e nds t hata tt he tim e O ffic e rB a lla r d d e liv e r e d t h e k n e e s tr ik e t o h is t h ig h , P e te r s o n w a s in fu ll
com pl i an ce w i t h al lpol i ce orders a n d w as off eri n g n o res i st an ce. Jodiw as seat ed i n t he t r uc k c ab and Pet e r s o n hi m s e l f w as ha ndc uf

fe d. Of t he m o m e nt s l e ad i ng up t o t he kne e s t r i ke , Pe t e r s o n t e s t i f i e d: I c an’ tr e c al lput t i ng up anyre s i s t anc e ; b utI w as b e i ng att acked by t w o p eopl e. I di dn ’ tkn ow t h ey w ere pol i ce o f f i c e r s , be c aus e I j us tw o ke up w he n t he y dr ug m e o ut of t he t r uck. So I m i gh t h a ve been – I know I w as c o nf us e d, a nd I di dn’ t kno w w hy I w as b e i ng at t ac ke d.

. . . I s i t possibl e I st rugg l ed? I don ’ tsee m u ch – there w asn ’ tm u ch of

a struggle f

rom m e . . . . Ith ap pen ed so fast t h ere w asn ’ tan y t i m e t o st rugg l e. I w as rol l ed over o n m y s t o m ac h, a nd b o t h o f f i c e r s had m y ar m s b e hi nd m y back ; an d they p u tcuf fs on m e . . . . A n d on e of t h e m, I b e l i e v e i tw a s t h e m a n , h a d h i s k n e e o n my n e c k

. . . . [A ] n d b o t h o f t h e m p r i e d mya r ms b e h i n d my back w i t h brute f

orce an d pu tcu f

fs on m e. A n d on e of th e m w a s s itt in g o n m yb a c k , a n dth e o th e ro n e h a d h is kne e o n m y ne c k g r i ndi ng m y fac e . . . . I c o ul dn’ tdo any t hi ng. I do n’ tt hi nk I s t r ugg l e d. Th e Ci t y ar gues t hatPet er so n w as be l l i ger entand t he knee s tri k e w as
n ecess ary to r est rai n hi m . Th e C i t y poi n t s t o dep osi t i on t est i m on y i n w h i ch O f f i c e rH o r ne rs t at e d t hatPe t e r s o n ki c ke d a the ra nd h i t he r f o r e ar m w he n s he f i rstt ri ed to w ak e hi m . O f f i cer B al l ard st ated t h at outs i de of t h e t ruck P et erson s tr u g g le d to e s c a p e h is g r a s p . In O ffic e rB a lla r d ’ s w o r d s , P e te r s o n “s till conti n u ed to fai lt o com pl y. H e w ou l dn ’ tst an d st i l l

. H e w as pu l l i n g aw ay f rom us . . . . H e [ t oo k] an aggre ss ive st ance t ow ar d us and [ di d] not[ c om pl y] t o w hat
w e ’ r e a s k in gh im to d o .” O u r p rece d en t req u i res t h a t to esta b l i sh a cl a i m of ex cess ive force, a pl ai n t i f f m u stshow t h at, i n add i t i on t o bei n g sei zed, h e suff ered “ ( 1) an i nj u ryN o. 08- 10258

9 t hat( 2) re s ul t e d di r e c t l y andonl y f r o m t he us e o f

f o r c e t hatw as e xc e s s ive t o t he
n ee d an d tha t ( 3 ) th e fo r c e u sed w a s ob j ectively u n rea son a b l e.” B al lard v

. B u rt on , 444 F. 3d 391, 402 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) ( quot i ng Floresv. C i ty of Palaci os , 381 F. 3d 391, 396 ( 5t h C i r . 2004) )

. There i s n o d i sput e t hatPet er so n suf fer ed an i nj u ry an d, f

or pu rposes of i t s m ot i on f or sum m ary j u dg m en t , t h e C i t y conceded th a t O ffic e rB a lla r d d e liv e r e d a k n e e s tr ik e t o P e te r s o n ’ s th ig h

. T h e q u e s tio n is
w h e th e r th a t k n e e s tr ik e w a s e x c e s s iv e to th e n e e d a n d th e r e fo r e o b je c tiv e ly
unr e as o nab l e . W e de t e r m i ne w he t he rt he f o r c e w as e xc e s s ive “ f r o m t he perspective of

a reasonab l e of

f i cer on t h e sc en e, rat h er t h an w i t h t h e 20/ 20 vis i on of hin d sigh t. ” G rah am v. Con n or , 4 9 0 U .S

. 3 8 6 , 3 9 6 (1 9 8 9 ); seealso B allard , 444 F .3 d a t 4 0 2
. T h e di st ri ct court h el d t h at t h e kn ee st ri ke w as n ot excessive. T h e di st ri ct
c o ur tpo i nt e d o utth a tt he e vi de nc e s ho w e d t hatPe t e r s o n ha d b e e n dr i nki ng, a nd th a t he h i t O ff

i cer H orn er on the f

ore a rm an d resistedO ff i cer B a l l a rd ’ s eff

orts to re s tr a in h im

. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t ob s e r v e d th a t P e te r s o n ’ s o w n te s tim o n yd id
n ot cont r ad i c tt he o f f i c e r s ’t e s t i m o ny t hatPe t e r s o n ha d r e s i s t e d c o m pl i anc e; P et erson s t at e d t hat“ t he r e w as n’ tm uc h o f a s t r ugg l e , ” b uthe di d no tde ny
r e s is tin gth e o ffic e r s . W e a gr ee t hatt he c onf l i c t i ng t es t i m ony do es notr ul e o utt he pos sib i l i ty t hats o m e f

o r c e m ayha ve b e e n r e as o nable t o r e s t r ai n Pe t e r s o n. Butt he evi den ce s u pp ort i n g t h e reasonab l en ess of t h e pol i ce r espon se i s c l earl y di spu t ed
c o n c e r n in gw h e th e rco n tin u in gfo r c e in th e fo r m o f a k n e e s tr ik e w a s ju s tifia b le aft erPet er so n had bee n hand c uf fed. P et er so n un equivoc al l y t es t i f i ed t hat O ffic e rB a lla r d d id n o t s tr ik e h im u n til a fte rh e h a d b e e n h a n d c u ffe d

. N or does i t escape ou r n ot i ce t h at t h e C i t y conceded t h at O f f i cer B al l ard st ruck Peterson w i t h h i s kn ee, yet O f f i cer B al l ard hi m sel f den i ed t h at he st ruck Pet er so n. O f

f i c erB al l ar d t es t i f

i ed t hatPet er so n re si st ed, butonl y m i ni m al l y, s u c h th a t a k n e e s tr ik e w o u ld h a v e b e e n u n n e c e s s a r y .N o. 08- 10258

10 Th us, th e exi st i ng evi denc e r ai se s unres olved ques t i ons abo utw hat occurred. W e t h eref ore hol d that t h e evi den ce c reat es a gen u i n e i ssue of
m at e r i alfac ta s t o w he t he r , f r o m t he pe r s pe c t ive o f a re as o nab l e of

f i c e ro n t he scene, t h e kn ee st ri ke w as excess ive an d theref ore obj ect ivel y u n reasona bl e. S u m m ary j u dg m en tas t o P et erson ’ s e x cess ive f orce cl ai m w as t h eref ore i m proper. I V. T h e qu est i on n ow b ecom es w h et h er su m m ary j u dg m en tw as non et h el ess proper as t o t h e C i t y’ s l i abil i t y f or t h e al l eged m i scondu ctof i t s of f i cers . A. W e w i l lb e gi n wi t h t he b as i c pr i nc i pl e s of m u n i ci pa ll i ab i l i t y f o rt he
m i scondu ctof

i t s em pl oyees i n § 1983 act i on s. Iti s w el l

- est abli shed t h at a ci t y i s n ot l i able u n der § 198 3 on t h e t h eory of resp on d ea t su p erio r . Mo n e ll, 4 3 6 U .S . a t 6 9 4 ; Joh n son , 3 7 9 F .3 d a t 3 0 8
. A
m uni c i pa l i t y i s a l m o s tne ve rl i ab l e f o ra n i s o l at e d un c o ns t i t ut i o nala c to n t he par tof an em pl oye e; i t i s l i abl e onl y f or ac t s di r ec t l y at t r ibut abl e t o i t“ t hro ugh
som e off i ci a laction o r i m p ri m a tu r. ” P i ot row skiv. C i ty of Hou st on , 237 F. 3d 567, 5 7 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T o es ta b li sh m u n icip a l l ia b il ityu n d e r § 1 9 8 3 , a p la in tiff
m usts how t hat( 1) an of f i c i alpol i c y ( 2) pr om ul gat ed by t he m uni c i pal p oli c ym aker( 3) w as t he m ovi ng f or c e b ehi nd t he vi ol at i on o f a c ons t i t ut i onal
r ig h t. I d. O ff i ci a l pol i c y es t abl i she s c ul pabi l i t y, and c an ar i se i n var i ous f or m s. It
u sua l l y exi st s i n t h e f orm of w ri t t en pol i cy st ate m e n ts, ordi n an ces, or regulat i on s, b u titm ay al so ari se i n t h e f orm of a w i desp read p ract i ce t h at i s “ so com m on an d w ell -sett l ed as to co n sti tu te a cu stom tha t fa i rl y re p rese n ts
m u n i ci p a lpo l i cy . ” Id

. at579 ( quot i ng W ebst er v. C i ty of

Hou st on , 735 F. 2d 838, 8 4 1 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) (e n b a n c )).N o. 08- 10258

11 Apol i cy or cu st om i s of f i ci alonl y “ w h en i tres u l t s f rom t h e deci si on or ac qui es c enc e o f

t he m uni c i palof

f i c erorbo dy w i t h ‘ f

i nalpol i c ym aki ng aut hor i t y’
ov er th e su b j ect m a tter of th e of fen d i n g po l i cy . ” Jett v
. D a lla s In d ep . S ch

. D ist. , 491 U
. S. 701, 737 ( 1989)

. Thu s, a pl ai nt i f f m u st sh ow the pol i c y w as pro m ul gat ed byt he m uni c i pal i t y’ s pol i c ym aker

. Th er e i s no “ de fac t o” f i nal p o lic y m a k in ga u th o r ity

. S ee G ros v. C i ty of G ran dP rai ri e, T

ex. , 181 F. 3d 613, 616 n. 2 ( 5t h C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng C ity of S t. L o u is v
. Pra p ro tn ik , 485 U
. S. 112, 131 ( 19 88 ) )

. H e r e t he part i e s a gr e e t hatChi e f M e ndo z a has f

i nalpo l i c ym ak i ng a u th ority ov er th e F ort W orth P oli ce D ep a rtm en t. F i n al l y, a pl ai n t i f

f m u stest abli sh that t h e polic y w as t h e m ovi n g f orce b e h in d th e v io la tio n . In o th e r w o r d s , a p la in tiff m u s t s h o w d ir e c t c a u s a tio n . S ee P io t r ow s ki , 2 3 7 F
. 3 d a t5 8 0
. T h i s me a n s “ t h e r e mus tb e a d i r e c tc a u s a ll i nk” b etw ee n th e poli cy a n d th e vi olati on . Id .;see also Joh n son , 379 F. 3d at310 ( quot i ng Frai re v. C i ty of A rl i ngt on , 957 F
. 2d 126 8, 128 1 ( 5th C i r. 199 2) ( “ m u st b e m o re th a n a m e re ‘b u t for ’”)). P et erson ackn ow l edg es th a t there i s no of f i ci alw ri t t en or ot h erw i se speci al l y art i cul ated pol i cy up on w h i ch h e can rel y. N evert h el ess, he ad van ces severalt h eori es of

m u n i ci pa ll i abil i t y. H e al l eges t h at t h e use of excessive f orce byFo r tW o r t h Po l i c e D e pa r t m e ntof f i c e r s i s so co m m o n, a nd wel lkno w n t o t he pol i c ym aker s, t hati t c ons t i t ut es a c ust om t hat fai r l y r epr es ent s of f i c i alpol i c y. In ad di t i on , he all eges t h e C i t y i s al so l i able becau se i t r a t i f i ed the u se of
ex cess ive force i n th i s ca se an d ge n era l l y fa i l ed eit h er t o t ra i n or su p e r v is e its of f i cers . B. Bec aus e w e c an qui ckl y c o nc l ude t hatt he Ci t y i s no tl i ab l e f o ra ny
v i o l a t i o n u n d e rt he t he o r i e s o f r a t i f i c a t i o n o rfa i l u r e t o t r a i n o rs u p e r v i s e , we a d d ress tho se a rg u m en ts f i rst.N o. 08- 10258

Th e di sse nt acknowle dgesth at ratificationi s “ seldom , if ever , found by thisc ourt .” 2 Itmaintains, however, that Peterson put forth evidence of ratificationsufficient towith stand summaryj udgment byshowingth atneitherOfficerB all ard nor Officer Hornerwas di sciplined for the use of force or failure to file a “U s e of F orce Rep ort” following the inci dent, and by pointing to Chief Mendoz a’s deposition testimony that both officers complied withthe C ity’s policies and procedures. However , this evi dence , viewed in the light most favorab le to Peterson , is insufficie nt to create a fact issue regardingthe C ity’s policymaker’s ratification of uncon stitution al conduct. In Cit y of St
. Lou isv . Pra

prot n ik , a ca se on which P et er so nrelie s, the Supre me C ourt empha size d that “[s]imply going along withdiscretio nary decisions made 12 Pet e r s o n a l l e ge s t he Ci t y i s l i ab l e b e c aus e Chi e f M e ndo z a r at i f

i e d t he
o ffi ce rs ’condu ct
. H e poi n t s out t h at C h i ef M en doza deter m i n ed aft er i nve s t i ga t i on t hatO f f i c e r s H o r ne ra nd Bal l ar d’ s c o nduc tc o m pl i e d wi t h t he dep art m en t ’ s pol i ci es. Peters on ci t es C i ty of S t
. L ou i s v. Praprotn ik , 4 85 U
. S. 112 ( 1988) , w hi c h ac know l edge s t hat “ [ i] f t he aut hor i ze d pol i c ym aker s appro ve a subor di nat e’ s dec i si on and t he bas i s f ori t , t hei rr at i f

i c at i on w oul d be ch a rg ea b l e to th e m u n i ci p a l i ty b eca u se th eir de ci sion i s f in a l

. ” I d. a t1 27
. But
ourpr ec ede nthas l i m i ted the t heor y o f r at i f i c at i on t o “ ext r em e fac t ual sit u a ti on s. ” S ee S nyd er v. Trepagn i er , 142 F
. 3d 791 , 798 ( 5th C i r. 199 8)

. U n der t hatpr ec ede nt , w e c annots ay t hatt hi s c as e pr ese n ts an ex t r em e fac t ual
s i tu a tio n . Compa re G ran d st aff v. C i ty of

B orger , 7 6 7 F. 2 d 1 6 1 ( 5 t h C i r . 1985) (f i ndi ng r at i f

i c at i o n i n c as e i n w hi c h o f f i c e r s “ po ur e d” g unf

i r e o nt o a t r uc k a nd k ille d in n o c e n t o c c u p a n t), w i t h S nyd er , 1 42 F. 3da t7 98 (r e f us i ng t o f

i nd rat i f i cat i on i n case i n w h i ch of f i cer shot f

l eei n g susp ect i n t h e back )

. M oreover, w e hav e al s o e xp l ai ne d t hat a po l i c ym ak e r w ho de fe nds c o nduc t t hati s l ater
s ho w n t o b e unl awfuldoe s no tne c e s s ar i l y i nc url i ab i l i t y o n b e hal f o f t he
m u n ic ip a lity

. S ee Coo n v. L edb et t er , 780 F. 2d 1158, 1161- 62 ( 5t h C i r . 1986) (preceden t“ does n otst an d f or t h e bro a d p roposi t i on t h at if a pol i cym ak er def ends h i s subo r di nat es and i f t hos e s ubor di nat es ar e l at erf ound t o have broken t h e l aw , t h en t h e i l l egal beh aviorcan be assum ed t o ha ve resul t ed f rom a n o ffic ia l p o lic y”). O u rp r e c e d e n t t h u s fo r e c lo s e s ra tific a t i o n l i a b ilityin th is
case. 2N o. 08- 10258

by one’ss ubor dinates , how ever, isno t a d elegation to the m of the autho rity to mak e policy .

. . .” 4 8 5U .S

. 1 1 2 , 1 3 0( 1 9 8 8). Additionally , “th e meref ailureto inves ti gateth e b a si s of a subordin ate’ s discretion arydecision s does not amount to adelegation of policymaking authority . . . .” Id

. Seea lso Ki b b e v. Cit y of S pr in g field , 77 7 F .2d 8 01, 809n .7 (1 st C ir. 1 985) (“The [di strict] court suggested thatthe Cityhad ratified defendant Perry’ s actionbycl earing him and findingth at he ha d acted in accor danc e with the polic e department’s policies. We are unconvinc edthat a failure to di scipline Perry or otherofficers a mounts to the sort of ratificationf

ro m whichaj uryp roperlyc ouldinfer municip al policy .”). The di ssenta lso acknowledges th at ratificationapp lie s onlyin“extreme factu al situation s.” It maintains, however, thatour co nclusio n that this was not an “extreme factu al sit uatio n” isa “factual det erm inati on, ” which w e are notperm itt ed tomak e. O n the contrary, our co nclu sionres tso nal egal determin ation th at the fact s here, evenviewe d inth e li ght mo st favor ab leto P et er so n , donotsati sf yth e le gal st an dardset out inour ratificationc a selaw.

13 Pet e r s o n a l s o a l l e ge s t hatt he Ci t y w as de l ibe r atel y i ndi f fe r e ntt o t he ob viou s n ee d f

or tra i n i n g on th e ri sk of i nj u ri es f rom k n ee stri k es. H e p oin ts t o O f f i c e rBal l ar d’ s t e s t i m o ny t hathe di d not“ r e c al lbe i ng t o l d t hatt he r e w as a ny ri sk of i nj u ry f

rom a kn ee st ri ke” n or t h at t rai n i n g “ m ay hav e m ad e a di f ference” i n hi s eva l u ati on of the u se of for ce. T h e fai l u re t o t rai n can am ou n tt o a pol i cy i f t he r e i s de l ibe r at e i ndi f fe r e nc e t o a n o bv i o us ne e d f o rt r ai ni ng w he r e c i t i z e ns ar e l i kel y t o l ose t hei rc ons t i t ut i onalr i ght s on ac c ountof novi c es i n l aw e n fo r c e m e n t. Se eB r o w n v. B r y an Co . , O kla. , 2 1 9 F .3d 4 5 0 , 4 5 8 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ).

“ [ U ] n der cer t ai n ci rcum st an ces, § 198 3 l i abil i t y can att ach f or a s i n gl e deci si on
n ott o t rai n an i n di vi du alof f i cer even w h ere t h ere has been no p att ern of p rev i ou s con sti tu ti on a lviol a ti on s. ” I d. a t4 59. B u tthose ci rcum st an ces are not present here. W e ha ve previ ou sl y h el d that t o hol d a m u n i ci pa l i t y l ia b l e f or fa ilu r e to tr a in a n o ffic e r , it m u s t h a v e b e e n o b v io u s t h a t “ th e h ig h lyp r e d ic ta b le consequ en ce of

n ottrai n i n g” i t s of

f i cers w as tha tthey“ w ou l d ap pl y f orce i n such
a w a y th a t t h e F ou rth A m en d m en t ri gh ts of [ci ti ze n s] w ere at ri sk

. ” I d. at461. P et erson poi n t s t o n o evi den ce t h at t h e C i t y w as aw are of an y ri sk of

i nj u ry f rom knee s t r i kes , and the C i t y s how ed t hatof f i c er s ot her w i se go t hro ugh ext ens ive t rai n i n g on t h e use of f orce. Pa rt i cul arl y i n t h e absen ce of evi den ce t h at t h e use of knee st r i kes had c ause d s er i ous i nj uri es on pr evi ous oc c as i ons , Pet er so n hasN o. 08- 10258

Thou ghthe evidence cited bythe di ssent maycre ate a factual di spute as towhether 3 the City’ s police officers received sufficie nt trainin g on thepracticeand consequences of knee strikes, “thata particular offic er may be un satisfactorilytraine d w illnot alone suffice to fa sten li ab ility on the city

. . . .” Cit y of C an tonv . Harris , 4 8 9U
. S

. 3 7 8 , 3 9 0( 1 9 8 9)

. Rath e r , the “vi gorous te s t”o f “deliberatein differe nce,” Bro wn , 21 9 F .3d at 4 61, is re quired because a “lesser standard of fault would result in de factoresp ondeatsu perior liabilityon municipalities–aresult [the S up r em e C ourt] rej ected in Mo nel l .” Can to n , 48 9 U .S. at39 2. Here , no reas onab lej uryc ouldc onclu deth at aris k of in j uryto citi z en s w a s th e “ob viou s,” “highlyp re dict ab lec on se qu ence” of al ackof kn ee strike tr aining , a s Pet er so nh a s notshown that the C ityh ad “ sufficient notice” that kne e strikes were frequ ently used, particul arly dangerou s, or had previou sly resulted in inj ury , much less an inj uryof the typeexperie nced b yP et er so n . Bro wn , 21 9 F .3d at 4 58. 14 pr e s e nt e d no m at e r i alfac tq ue s t i o n t o s ho w t hati ts ho ul d ha ve b e e n obvious to th e p o lic y m a k e r s th a t t h e ris k o f s e r io u s i nj u r yw a s a “h ig h lyp r e d ic ta b le
c o n s e q u e n c e ” o f

t h e fa i l u r e to tr a in

. S ee Esta te of D a v is exre l. McC u lly v

. C ity
of No rth R ich m o n dHills , 40 6 F
. 3 d 37 5 , 38 3 , 38 6 ( 5 th C i r. 20 0 5 ) (delib era te i ndi f fe r e nc e us uall y r e qui r e s “ ‘ at l e as t a pa t t e r n o f s i m i l ari nc i de nt s i n whi c h t he ci t i zens w ere i nj u red’” (ci t ati on om i t t ed), an d “na rrow ” si n gl e i n ci den texcepti on h a s a p p l i ed w h en th e cou rt fi n d s a com p l ete fa i l u re t o train , n ot j u st a fail u re to tra in in “on e li m ited a re a ”). 3 In a sim i l a r v ein , P eters on a l l eg es th e C i ty w a s d elib era tel y in d i ff ere n t t o t h e need t o sup ervi se i t s of f i cers adeq u atel y. A gain, f or t h e C i t y t o be l i able f or fa ilu r e to s u p e r v is e , it a t le a s t m u s t h a v e b e e n o b v i o u s t h a t “ th e h ig h ly p red i ctab l e con seq u en ce” of n ot su p erv i sing i ts off i cers w a s th a t th ey“w o u ld ap pl y f orce i n such a w ay that t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en tri gh t s of [ ci t i zens] w ere a t ri sk

. ” I

d. at 461
. A s an exa m pl e of t h e dep art m en t’ s fa il u re t o sup ervi se, P et erson poi n t s t o t h e fact t h at O f f i cer H orner fai l ed t o f i l l ou t a u se o f f

o rce report , i n vi ol ati on of dep art m en tp ol i cy, a f t er sh e w i t n essed O f

f i cer B al l ard u se fo r c e o n P e te r s o n . E v e n a s s u m in gth is to b e tr u e , h o w e v e r , th e d e p a r tm e n t d id d e m on st rat e som e sup ervi si on by cond u ct i n g a thoroug h i n t erna laf fai rs i n vest i gati on i n t o t h e i n ci den tan d i n t o a p ossibl e m i sst atem en tm ad e i n O f f i cer H orner’ s act ivi t y report
. T h e dep art m en t ’ s fai l u re t o repri m an d on e of f i cer f orN o. 08- 10258

15 an i n st an ce of

fau l t y recor dk eepi n gw ou l d n otal on e rai se a genu i n e i ssue of
m ater i alfacton w h et h er t h e obvi ou s and “ h i gh l y predic t able consequ en ce” of t he depar t m ent ’ s ac t i ons w as t hatc i t i ze ns’Fourt h A m endm entright s w oul d be violated , an d P eters on h a s oth erw i se p rov i d ed n o ev i d en ce of i n a d eq u a te
s upe r vi s i o n. W e f

i nd n o e vi de nt i ar y s upp o r tt o sub m i tm uni c i pa ll i ab i l i t y t o t he j u ry on the t h eory t h at t h e dep art m en tfai l ed to sup ervi se i t s of f i cers . A c c or di ngl y, t he di st r i c tc our tpr operly h el d on s um m ar y j udgm entt hat t h e C i t y i s not l i able f or an y vi ol ati on u n der t h e t h eori es of rat i f i cat i on or fai l u re t o t rai n or sup ervi se. C. F i n a l l y, w e a d d ress w h eth er P eters on h a s p rese n ted su ff i ci en t ev i d en ce to esta b l i sh a fact qu estion f or m u n ic ip a l l i a b i l i ty on the ba sis th a t t h e C i ty
m ai nt ai ned an of

f i c i alpol i c y t hatw as perm i ss ive of ex c es sive f

or c e. As w e have st ated, P et erson m u stshow som e evi den ce t o sup port t h at an of f i ci alpol i cy of th e C i ty w a s th e m ov i n g f orce b eh i n d th e exce ssive f orce th a t vi olated h i s F ou rth A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts
. Pi ot r ow s ki , 237 F. 3da t5 78
. H e c o nc e de s t hatt he r e i s no
w r i t t en pol i c y suppor t i ng hi s c l ai m of m uni c i pall i abi l i t y. I nst ead he ar gues t hat
a pa ttern o f ex cess ive f orce i n m a k i n g a rres ts estab l i sh es th a t t h e C i ty
m ai n t ai n ed an un w ri t t en pol i cy tha tw as p erm i ssive of the u se of

excess ive f

orce. I n suppor t , h e poi nt s t o 27 com pl ai nt s of exc es sive f

or c e bet w ee n 2002 and 200 5. T h e l egal qu estio n th u s p resented i s w h et h er t h e 27 com pl ai n t s on w h i ch Pet er so n re l i es ar e s uf f i c i entt o es t abl i sh a pat t er n of ex c es sive f

or c e t hatc an be
s a id to re p r e s e n t o ffic ia l p o lic y . Ap a tt e r n is t a n ta m o u n t to o ffic ia l p o lic yw h e n it is “s o co m m o n a n d w e llsettl ed a s to c on sti tu te a cu stom tha t fa i rl y re p rese n ts m u n i ci p a lpo l i cy . ” I d. at 579 ( q u ot i ng W

ebst er v. C i ty of

Hou st on , 735 F
. 2d 838 , 841 ( 5th C i r. 198 4) ( en banc) )

. W her e pr i ori nci dent s ar e us ed t o pr ove a pat t er n, the y “ m usthave
o c c ur r e d f

or so long o rs o f

r e que nt l y t hatt he c o ur s e o f c o nduc tw ar r ant s t heN o. 08- 10258

16 a tt r ib u tio n to th e g o v e r n in gb o d yo f k n o w le d g e th a t th e o b je c tio n a b le co n d u c t is th e exp ected , a ccep ted p ra cti ce of ci ty em p l oy ee s. ” W ebst er , 73 5 F
. 2 d at 84 2
. It i s t hus c l eart hata pl ai nt i f f m ust d em ons t r at e “ a pat t er n of abus es t hat tran scen d s th e e rror m a d e in a si n gle ca se.” Pi ot r ow s ki , 237 F. 3d at582 (ci t ati on s om i t t ed). Ap att ern requ i res si m i l ari t y an d speci f i ci t y; “ [ p]r i or i n di cat i on s c an n otsi m pl y be f or an y an d al l‘bad ’or u n w i se acts, b u trather m u st p oin t t o th e sp ecif

i c viol a ti on i n qu estion

. ” Esta te of D a v is exre l. McC u lly v

. C ity
of No rth R ich la n dHills , 4 0 6 F .3 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). Apatt ern al so r equ i res “ suff i c i e nt ly n u m erous pri or i n ci den t s, ” as opposed to “i solated i n stan ces.” McCon n ey v. C i ty of Hou st on , 86 3 F
. 2 d 11 8 0 , 11 8 4 ( 5 th Ci r . 1 98 9)

. I n P in e d a v . C ity of Ho u s to n , 2 9 1 F .3 d 3 2 5 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), w e h e ld t h at el even i n ci den t s of w arran t l ess en t ry di d n otsup p o rt a patt ern of
u n consti t u t i on alw arran t l ess en t ry. I n each of t h ose el e v en i n ci den t s, of f i cers
r e p o r te d e ith e rco n s e n t o re x ig e n t c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I d. at 329 n. 12. W e observed t h at “ [ e] l even i n ci den t s ea c h ult i m at e ly o f f e r i ng e quivo c ale vi de nc e o f com pl i an ce
w i t h t he Fo ur t h Am e ndm e ntc anno ts upp o r ta pa t t e r n o f i l l e ga l i t y i n o ne o f

t he N a ti on ’ s l a rg est ci ti es a n dpo l i ce forces

. ” I d. a t 3 2 9
. The di s t r i c tc o ur t , r e l yi ng o n Pi ne da , hel d that t h e 27 c om pl ai n t s on w h i ch P et erson rel i es w ere i n suff i ci en tt o est abli sh a p att ern of excess ive f

orce. A f

t er caref u lexam i n ati on of

t h e rec ord, w e concl u de the di st ri ctcourtdi d n oterr . P et erson presented evi den ce t h at, accor di n g t o t h e C i t y’ s i n t erna laf fai rs
r e c o r ds , a tl e as t2 7 com pl ai n t s o f e xc e s s ive f

o r c e w e r e f

i l e d b e t w e e n 2 00 2 and 2 0 0 5
. A lm o s t a ll a r o s e f r o m o ffic e r s ’in v e s tig a tio n s o f w h a t m a yb e ca lle d s m a ll cri m es; t h e inj u ri es su f fered, h ow ever, ran ged fr om m i n or l acerat i on s to broken bones

. I n one i nci dent , of f i c er s al l ege dl y s t opped a su sp ect w h o w as r i di ng a b ic y c le a n d , a fte rh e h a d d is m o u n te d th e b ic y c le a n d la yo n th e g r o u n d , b e a t h im
u n t i lhi s fac e b l e d a nd h i s no s e a nd e ye s o c ke tw e r e f r ac t ur e d. I n a n ot h er in cid e n t, a n office r w h o d e ta in e d a n in d ivid u a l as a s u sp e ct in th e b u rg la ryof aN o. 08- 10258

T w en ty-seven incidents infour years, with no context a s to the overall number of 4 arre sts or anycomparison s to other cities, is not sufficie nt evidence of a pattern risin g to the level of apolicy . The bur den of provi ding a context that would show such a patternfalls o n the plaintiff, not on the City, and Petersonh as faile d to meet that b urden . No reaso nab le jury coul d co nclude base d on Peterson’s evidence that the City had estab lish ed amunicipal policy of u sing or condonin g excessive force. 17 car w ash kn ee- st ruck h i m i n the back a n d broke h i s j aw ; tha tindivi du alt u rned
ou tt o be, not a suspect , bu tone of t h e car w ash ’ s ow n ers. I n yetan ot h er i nci dent , of

f i c er s al l ege dl y punched a nd beata sus pec tu nt i lhe s uf fer ed a head i nj u ry; al t h ou gh t h e of f i cers cl ai m ed t h at the susp ectw as carryi n g a crack pi pe, t he y w e r e una bl e t o pr o duc e t he pi pe . And f i nal l y, in a n e ve n m o r e a l ar m i ng i n ci den t , of

f i cers res pon di n g t o a cal lal l egi n g t am peri n g w i t h an el ect ri calbox
e n te r e d a n a p a r tm e n t w ith o u t a w a r r a n t a n d a lle g e d lyta s e d a n in d iv id u a l u n til h e w a s u n c o n s c io u s a n d h a d s to p p e d b r e a th in g . T h e i n c i d e n ts a lle g e u s e o f fo r c e th a t, if tr u e , w o u ld b e e m p h a tic a lly
e x c e s s iv e . N e v e r th e le s s , a s s u m in gth e irtr u th , th e in c id e n ts d o n o t, o n th e b a s is
o f t hi s r e c o r d, t e l lus t hatt he Ci t y m ai nt ai ne d a n o f f i c i alp ol i c y o f

c o ndo ni ng ex cess ive f

orce . T h e fail u re of the ev i d en ce is t h a t th e p l a i n ti ffs h a ve fa i l ed to pro vi de c ont extt hatw oul d s how a pat t er n of es t abl i shi ng a m uni c i palpol i c y. 4 F or exam pl e, t h e r ecord does not i n di cat e t h e si ze of t h e F ortW ort h P ol i ce D epar t m entorhow m any ar r es t s w er e m ade by the depar t m entbe t w ee n 2002 and2 00 5. W e ha ve pr e vi o us l y i ndi c at e d t hatt he si ze of a po l i c e de pa r t m e nt
m ayb e r e l e va n t t o de t e r m i ni ng w he t he ra s e r i e s o f i nc i de nt s c an be c al l e d a p a tt e r n . Pi ne da , 2 91 F. 3da t3 29 ( “ El e ve n i nc i de nt s e ac h ul t i m at e l y o f fe r i ng equ ivocal evi den ce of com pl i an ce w i t h t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en t can n ot su p p o rt
a p a tte rn of il leg a li tyin on e of th e N a tion ’ s la rg e st c iti e s a n d p o li ce for ce s.”). A l t h ou gh t h e recor d om i t s an y evi den ce of t h e dep art m en t ’ s s i ze or t h e nu m ber of i t s ar r es t s, t he depar t m ent ’ s ow n w ebs i t e i ndi c at es t hat i tpr es ent l y e m pl oys
m ore t h an 1, 500 of

f i cers , an d that th e re w e re m ore t h an 67, 000 i n ci den t s ofN o. 08- 10258

18 c r i m e i n t he l as ty e ara l o ne . Gi ve n t he de pa r t m e nt ’ s s i z e , a nd a bs en t a ny ev i d en ce of i ts t ota ln u m b er of arre sts du ri n g th e sa m e ti m e p eriod , 27 i n ci d en ts of ex c es sive f

or c e o vera pe r i od o f

f ourye ar s do notr ef

l ec ta pat t er n t hatc an be
sa i d to rep rese n t off

i ci a l p oli cy of con d on i n g exc ess ive force so as t o ho l d th e C i ty l i able f or t h e act s of

i t s em pl oyees’un consti t u t i on alcondu ct
. T o h ol d otherw i se w ou l d be ef

fect ivel y t o hol d t h e C i t y l i able on t h e t h eory of res pon dea tsup eri or,
w hi c h i s expr es sly pr ohibi t ed by Mo n ell

. S ee 436 U
. S. at694. Th e r ec or d doe s i n d i ca te th atf orea c h of

t he 27 c om pl ai nt s of ex c es sive fo r c e th e d e p a r tm e n t c o n d u c te d a n in te r n a l in v e s tig a tio n , afa c t t h a t w o u ld appear t o c ut agai nstt he ar gum entt hatt he C i t y c ondoned t he use of ex c es sive force. T h e C i ty i tself h a s reli ed on the fa ct t h a t on l y fou r of th e 2 7 com p l a i n ts
w ere “su stain ed ” aft er inv estiga ti on an d , i n d ee d , i n e a ch of th e incide n ts described above, t h e dep art m en t fou n d the com pl ai n tof excess ive f

orce ei t h er “n o t s u s ta in e d ” o r“u n fo u n d e d .” H o w e v e r , t h a t th e d e p a r tm e n t it s e lf v a g u e ly
r ul ed m os tof

i t s c om pl ai nt s “ not sus t ai ned” or “ unfounded” i s no as sur ance t hat t he s e i nve s t i ga t i o ns e xo ne r at e t he Ci t y. To t he c o nt r ar y, t hato nl y fouro f t he 27 com pl ai n t s w ere “ sustai n ed” af t er i n vest i gati on m ay ti l ti n P et erson’ s favor. N evert h el ess, even assum i n g errorin the u n sustai n ed i n vest i gati on s, the record
a s a w hol e w i l lnots upporta l egalc onc l usi on t hatt he C i t y m ai nt ai ned an
o ffic ia l p o lic yo f c o n d o n in ge x c e s s iv e fo r c e . In su m , the 27 in c id e n ts, i n the con tex t of this recor d , do n ot su gg est a p a tt e r n “s o co m m o n a n d w e ll-s e tt le d a s to co n s tit u te a cu s to m t h a t fa ir ly rep rese n ts m u n i ci p a lpo l i cy . ” Pi ot r ow s ki , 2 3 7 F .3 d a t 5 7 9
. V. I n c o n c lu s io n , t h e r e w a s s u ff ic ie n te v id e n c e to e s t a b li s h P e t e r s o n ’s
e xc e s s ive f

o r c e c l ai m . Pet e r s o n, ho w e ve r , di d no ts ue t he o f f i c e ro ro f

f i c e r s w ho vi o l at e d hi s c o ns t i t ut i o nal r i ght s . I ns t e ad he s o ugh t t o i m po s e l i ab i l i t y o n t he Ci t y o f Fo r t W o r t h f

o r t h e m i s c o n d u c t o f i t s e m p l o y e e s . I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n, heN o. 08- 10258

19 fai l ed t o pr oduc e e vi denc e t o s at i sf y t he dem andi ng s t andards r equi r ed by Mo n elland i t s pro gen y to h ol d t he C i t y l i abl e, al lf ort he r eas ons w e have d e ta ile d in th is o p in io n . A c c o r d in g ly , th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t is AF FIRM E D
.N o. 08- 10258

United S tates District Judge, WesternDistrict of Texas, sitting bydesi gn ation. ***** 20 M O N T A L V O , D i stri ct Ju d ge , con cu rringi n pa rt an d dissen ti n g in pa rt. ***** Ati s s ue o n r e vi e w i s w he t he rPe t e r s o n m e t hi s bur de n, as t he no n- m o vi ng par t y t o t he C i t y’ s sum m ar y j udgm entm ot i on, of s how i ng a di sput e o f m at er i al factconcerni n g h i s c l ai m s. Th e m aj ori t y properl y set s f o rth th e s t an da rd of revi ew on su m m ary j u dg m en t , noti n g i tshou l d ap pl y t h e sam e l egal st an da rd t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtapp l i ed. I C O N C U R w ith the f i n di n gs i n P artI II of
m ajo r ityo p in io n , sup ra , t hatPe t e r s o n’ s s e i z u re w as re as o nab l e w i t hi n t he
m ean i n g of

the F ou rt h A m en dm en ta n d t h eref ore l aw f u l , b u tt h at t h e evi den ce c r e a t e s a g e nu i ne i s s ue o f m a t e r i a l fa c t a s t o whe t he r t he kn e e s t r i ke w as e x ce ss ive a n d th e re for e ob jec tiv e ly u n re a so n a b le, f ro m th e p e rs p e ctiv e o f a
r e a s o n a b le o ffic e ro n th e s c e n e . H ow ev er, w ith r e g a rd s to the C i ty’ s su m m a ryj u d gm en t m oti on as to
m u n i c i p a llia b ilityin P a r t I Vo f th e m ajo r ityo p in io n , sup ra , I b e l i e ve t he
m aj ori t y h ol ds P et erson t o a higher st an da rd t h an t h e l aw requi res. Acc o r di ngly, I r e s pe c t f ul l y D I SSEN T as t o t he m aj o r i t y’ s f i ndi ng t he r e i s no g e n u in e is s u e o f fa c t fo rtr ia l co n c e r n in gm u n ic ip a l lia b ility

. I. T h e cou rt’ s task i s to rev i ew the ev i d en ce a n d reso lve allrea son a b l e d ou b ts
an d i n ferences i n a l igh tm ostf avora bl e t o Pet ers on , as th e non- m ovi ng par t y. R i c har ds o n v . O l dham , 1 2 F .3 d 1 3 7 3 , 1 3 8 1 -8 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ); McK ee v. C i ty of R ockw all, T

ex. , 8 77 F. 2d4 09 , 410 ( 5t h C i r . 198 9)

. Pe t e r s o n o nl y ne e ds t o pr e s e nt

“ s o m e e vi de nc e o f

. . . a po l i c y i n o r de rt o survive t he [ Ci t y’ s ] s um m ar y j udg m e nt
m oti on . ” S ee McK

ee , 8 77 F. 2da t4 14

- 15
. Tha tis , P e t e r s o n ne e d o nl y pr e s e nt suff i ci en tevi den ce t o sh o w th e re is a di spu t e of factregardi n g t h e C i t y pol i ce dep art m en t ’ s pol i cy on u se of for ce “t h at a reasona bl e j u ry cou l d ret u rn a verdic t for t h e n on m ov i n g p a rty.” Frai re v. C i ty of A rl i ngt on , 9 5 7 F
. 2 d 1 2 6 8 , 12 7 3 ( 5 thN o. 08- 10258

21 C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). A c c o r d in g ly , s u c h e v id e n c e m u s t h a v e p r o b a tiv e w e ig h t. S ee McK ee , 877 F. 2d at415. N onet hel es s, onl y “ a c o mp lete fai l u re of proof c onc er ni ng an essenti alel em en tof th e n o n m ovi n g pa rt y’ s c ase necessari l y rend ers al lot h er facts i m m a terial

. ” I d. at414- 15 (c i t i ng Celo te xC o r p . v . Ca tre tt , 477 U
. S. 317, 3 2 2 -2 3 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 2 5 4 8 , 2 5 5 2 , 9 1 L
. E d

. 2 d 2 6 5 (1 9 8 6 )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h is court h as m ad e cl e a r: “[c ] redibi l i t y determ i n ati on s hav e no p l ace i n sum m ary j u d gm en t pro cee d i n gs . ” R i cha rdson , 12 F. 3d at1381- 82. II. A. I n th e fi r s tin s t a n c e , t h e m ajo r it ys u m m a r il yd is m is s e s P e t e r s o n ’s argu m en tan d the evi den ce concerni n g l i abil i t y based up on a t h eory of
r a t i f i c a t i o n . T h e maj o r i t ys t a t e s a t h e o r y o f r a t i f i c a t i o n d e p e n d s u p o n “ e x t r e me fac t uals i t uat i ons , ” but doe s not expl ai n how i t r eac hed t he det er m i nat i on t hat Pet e r s o n fai l e d t o pr esenta n e xt r e m e fac t uals i t uat i o n, g ive n t he e xi s t i ng d i sp u tes of m a terialfa ct. E vi denc e o n t hi s i ss ue i ncl uded 1) C hi ef M endoz a’ s depos i t i on t es t i m ony, i n w h i ch h e sta tes b oth O ff i cer B a l l a rd a n d O ff

i cer H orn er a cted in con form i ty
w i t h t he Ci t y’ s po l i ci es a nd p r o c e dur e s ; a nd i n whi c h he s t at e s i f t he r e i s no d is c ip lin e fo re x c e s s iv e fo r c e , th e la c k o f d is c ip lin e co u l d b e c o n s tr u e d a s ta c it ap prova lof

t h e use of

f orce; 2) O f

f i cer H orner’ s d eposi t i on t est i m on y, i n w h i ch she s t at es s he be l i eve s she s aw O ff i cer B al l ar d knee st r i ke Pet er so n; and 3) O ffic e rB a lla r d ’ s d e p o s itio n t e s tim o n yt h a t a k n e e s tr ik e a g a in s t P e te r s o n w o u ld hav e b e e n e xc e s s ive f o r c e b e c aus e Pe t e r s o n was unde rco nt r o l ; no ta t hr e at ; a nd
n oteng aged i n an y beh aviort h at j u st i f i ed a k n ee st ri ke. The Ci t y ar gue s i ti s notl i ab l e unde ra t he o r y o f r at i f i c at i o n b e c aus e t he off i cers w ere fa ced w i th an ag gr ess ive l y re sist i n g in d ivid u a lan d off ers it s
w ri tten po l i ci es in su p p ort.N o. 08- 10258

22 The di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f t hi s ba s i s f

o r m uni c i pa l l i ab i l i t y, a nd t he
m aj o r i t y’ s sum m ar y af f i r m anc e of

t hatdec i s i o n, i s pr o bl e m at i c bas e d up o n t he appl i c abl e b urde ns o f pr oo f f orthe r es pec t ive par t i es . A s t he non- m ovi ng par t y, P et erso n ’ s b u rden of proof at sum m ary j u dg m en ti s s u f f i ci en tevi den ce, w h i ch
c r e a te s a d is p u te o f m a te r ia l fa c t. S ee Frai re , 957 F
. 2d at1273. I ti s t r ue t hat
r a tific a tio n is s e ld o m , if ev e r , fo u n d b yth is co u r t. A s th e m ajo r ityp o in ts o u t, a pol i cym ak e r w h o d efen ds cond u ctl atershow n t o be un l aw f u ldoes not
n ecess aril y incur l i abil i t y on beh al f of t h e m u n i ci pa l i t y; non et h el ess, t h i s does notf or ec l os e t he pos sibi l i t y t hatt he m u n i ci pal i t y m ayi nc url i ab i l i t y. “ I f t he
a u th orized po l i cy m a k ers a p p r o v e a su b ord i n a te’ s d ecisi on an d the ba sis for i t, t h ei r r ati f

i cat i on w ou l d be cha rgeable t o t h e m u n i ci pa l i t y becau se t h ei r deci si on i s f i n a l

. ” C ity of S t. L o u is v
. Pra p ro tn ik , 485 U
. S. 112, 127, 108 S. C t
. 915, 926, 9 9 L
. E d

. 2 d 1 0 7 (19 8 8 ). Th e m aj or i t y di st i ngui she s bet w ee n t he i nst ance s i n w hi c h t he c our thas p e r m itt e d a p a r tyt o s u c c e e d o n a th e o r yo f r a tific a tio n , a n d th is ca s e , n o tin gth is i s n ot an “extrem e factu a lsi tu a ti on . ” E ve n th o u g h t h e r e i s a d i sp u te of fa cts
c o nc e r ni ng w hate xa c t l y o c c ur r e d bet w e e n Of f i c e r s Bal l ar d a nd H o r ne ra nd P et erson, t h e m aj ori t y h ol ds t h e fact u alsi t u ati on i s not extr em e enou gh f or a t he o r y o f r at i f

i c at i o n t o ap pl y. The m aj o r i t y i s m ak i ng a fac t ualde t e r m i nat i o n. Iti s f or t h e j u ryto m a k e fa c tu a l a n d cr e d ib ilityd e te r m in a tio n s . S ee R i cha rdson , 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 8 1 -8 2
. H ere, P et erson show ed: at l east t w o peop l e, he an d O f f i cer H orner, bel i eve d O f

f i c er B al l ar d per f

or m ed a knee st r i ke; O f f i c er B al l ar d di d notbe l i eve a knee st r i ke w as w ar r ant ed und er t he c i r c um st ance s; and nei t herof f i c erw as di sci pl i n ed f

or t h e i n ci den t , desp i t e t h e dep art m en t ’ s pol i cy t h at w h en an of f i cer u ses f orce or s ees another o ffi cer u se f orce, a U se of

F orce reporti s t o be f i l l ed
o u t.N o. 08- 10258

23 C i t y of F ort h W ort h P ol i ce D epa rt m en tG en eralO rder 3 0 6 .09 requi res

“ anyus e o f

f o r c e i nc i de ntdur i ng w hi c h t he l e ve lo f f o r c e us e d was ha r d o pe nh an d controlan d rest rai n tor greatershallbe rep ort ed an d i den t i f i ed as ‘ U se of F orce by an O f

f i cer. ’” Th e G en eralO rder speci f i cal l y di rect s an of

f i cer t o “ report t he f ul lde t ai l s o f

t he us e o f

f o r c e i n r e l at e d a rres t s or of fe ns e r e po r t s . I f

no ar r es torof

fens e r epo r ti s t o b e c om pl et ed, t he det a i l s sh a l lb e r epo r t ed i n an in c id e n t r e p o r t.” A tt h e t i m e of com pl et i n g t h e U se of F orce report , “ [ a] separate i n t er- of f i ce c o r r e s po nde nc e w i l lb e c o m pl e t e d by t he s upe r vi s o r and f o r w ar de d t hr o ugh t he of f i cer’ s c h ai n of

com m an d to be re v iew ed an d f i l ed byt h e bu reau . ” Th ese rep orts a re su p p ose d to be com p l eted a t th e en d of a n off i cer’ s w a tch an d are to be e nt i t l e d “ U s e o f

Fo r c e ” a nd r o ut e d t o t he ca pt ai n f o rm ana ge m e ntr e vi e w . The
c a p ta in s a r e ch a r g e d w ith re v ie w in gth e U s e o f F o r c e re p o r ts “t o d e te r m in e if t h ere i s a need f

or c h an ges i n dep art m en t alprocedu res or addi t i o nalt rai ni ng fo rth e o ffic e r” (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). O f f i c e rH o r ne rt e s t i f

i e d s he sa w O f

f i c e rBal l ar d us e f

o r c e –a kne e s t r i ke

– w hi c h, a c c o r di ng t o the C i t y’ s e vi de nc e , i s ha r d o pe n- handc o nt r o l

. Ye t , s he
n ever f i l l ed ou ta U se of F orce report
. W h en i t w as di scovered she nev er f i l l ed
ou ta U se of

R eport, she w as not di sc ip li n ed f or t h i s fai l u re. C h i ef M en doza des c r ibed O f

f i c erH or ner ’ s fai l ure t o f i l loutt he U se of

F or c e re por tas “ anci l l ar y” t o t he i nves t i gat i on o f Pet er so n’ s al l egat i ons . Thi s i s pro bl em at i c f ors eve r al
reasons. A ccord i n g to ev i d en ce p rese n ted bythe C i ty, su ch U se o f F orce rep orts
e v e nt ua l l ya r e s u p p o s e d t o b e f o r wa r d e d t o t h e T r a i n i n gDiv i s i o n f o rr e v i e w. A ccord i n g to G en era lO rd er 3 0 6
. 1 0 , a T ra i n i n g D ivisi on ca p tain i s task ed w i th
en suri n g ap propri ate t rai n i n g i s devel oped an d of fered an n u al l y. I f

t h e pol i ce dep art m en ti s not en f orci n g t h e sel f

- re p o rtin g of use of f orce, despi t e t h e fact th a t t h e yh a v e a n o ffic e rw h o s ta te s s h e b e lie v e s s h e s a w fo r c e u s e d , it isN o. 08- 10258

Officer Hornerrec eived her commission as a Fort Worth Police Officer in December 1 200 4, approximatelyninemonths prior to the alleged inci dent. 24 e s s e n tia llyco n d o n in gth e fa ilu r e to re p o r t. T h is , in tu r n , e n s u r e s th e r e w ill
n everbe an as se ss m entof w he th er t r ai ni ng on e xc es sive f or c e s houl d be cond u ct ed w i t h great er r egu l ari t y or i n a di f ferent m an n er. C ou pl i n g t h ese ci rcum st an ces w i t h t h e D efen sive T act i cs M an u alof t h e F ortW ort h P ol i ce A c a d e m y ’s m a x im , “ I f i tm a k e s y o u lo o k g o o d , b u tit ’s n o tin y o u rr e p o r t , itd id n ’t h ap pen , ” t h ere app ears t o be a t a ci tun derst an di n g t h at if an of f i cer does n ot rai se t h e i ssue, he or she m ay av oi d i tal lt ogether. T h e d istr ict co u rt a tte m p te d to a d d re ss th e issu e of O ffi ce r H o rner’ s f ai l u re t o reportt h e use of f orce w h e n it dea l tw i t h P et erson’ s fai l u re t o sup ervi se a rg u m en t. T h e d i stri ct cou rt stated the In tern a lA ffa i rs i n ve sti ga ti on d ea l t w i th th e d efi ci en cyan d reli ed on S erg ea n t D eck er’ s a d m on i ti on to O ff i cer H orn er to b e m ore dil i ge n t i n the accu ra te d ocu m e n ta tio n of h er w ork pr od u ct. U nf or t unate l y, t he di st r i c tc our tw as m i st aken as t o w hy O f f i c erH or nerw as a d m o n is h e d

. T h e I n t erna lA f

fai rs i n vest i gati on dealtw i t h t h e fal si f i cat i on of

O f f i cer H or ner ’ s w or kshee t , i ncl udi ng hernot at i ons r egar di ng w het herPet er so n dro ve a w a y after th e en cou n ter. T h i s a d d i ti on a l a l l eg a ti on of fa l sif yin g h er w ork sh ee t,
w hi c h w as added duri ng t he c our se of t he I nt er nalA f

fai r s i nves t i gat i on, w as act u al l y a recr i m i n ati on againsther m i st ak e regardi ng w he t he rPe t e rson st ayed at t h e sc en e, l ef

tt h e sc en e, or cal l ed a f ri en d. It h ad n ot h i n g t o do w i t h O f f i cer H o r ne r ’ s fai l ur e t o r e po r tO f f i cer B al l ar d’ s us e o f f o r c e . I f

a nyt hi ng, t he
a d m o n itio n lo o k s m o r e lik e a n u n s c r u p u lo u s ta c tic m e a n t to s tr o n g -a r m a ro o k ie of f i cer i n t o chan gi n g h er s t atem en tby turni n g u p the h eat on her. 1 D r awi ng al lr e as o nab l e i nfe r e nc e s i n fav o ro f Pe t e rson bas e d up o n t he
ev i d en ce p rese n ted , P eters on h a s crea ted a q u e s tion of fact t o b e su b m i tted to th e ju r yre g a r d in gra tific a tio n . T h e C ityo ffe r s n o e v id e n c e th a t r e n d e r s a llN o. 08- 10258

25 m a terial facts i n d i sp u tab l e. D efea ti n g a su m m a ry j u d gm en t m oti on o n ly requ i res t h e non - m ovi n g pa rt y t o present s u f f i ci en tevi d e n ce, w h i ch creat es a d i sp u te of m a terialfa ct. B eca u se th ere i s su ff i ci en t evide n ce t o create a d i sp u te
o f m at e r i alfac t , I b e l i e ve t he i s s ue o f r at i f i c at i o n s ho ul d b e s u bm i t t e d t o t he j ury. B. The m aj o r i t y c o r r e c t l y po i nt s o utm uni c i pa ll i ab i l i t y c an be b as e d up o n a fai l ure to t r ai n i f

t her e i s del iber at e i ndi f fer enc e t o a n obvi ous nee d f ort r ai ni ng,
w hi c h co ul d i m pai r c i t i ze ns’ c ons t i t ut i onal r i ght s. Th e m aj or i t y s et s f or t h t hat
m uni c i pall i abi l i t y o n a fai l ure t o t r ai n t heor y r equi r es t hati tbe obvi ous t hat

“ t h e hi gh l y predic t able c o n sequ en ce of not t rai n i n g” i t s of

f i cers w as t h at t h ey

“ w ou l d ap pl y f

orce i n such a w ay t h at the F ou rt h A m en dm en tri gh t s of [ ci t i zens]
w ere at ri sk

. ” Bro w n v . Bry an Co

. , O kla. , 2 19 F. 3d 45 0, 46 1 ( 5t h Ci r . 20 00 )

. The
m aj ori t y assert s that P et erson poi n t s to n o ev i den ce t h at t h e C i t y w as aw are of
an y ri sk of

i nj u ry t o kn ee st ri kes, an d i n st ead rel i es on t o t h e C i t y’ s c on t en t i on i tcondu ct s ext en sive t rai n i n g on t h e use of f orce. Th e m aj ori t y concl u des P e te r s o n h a s fa ile d to p r e s e n t a q u e s tio n o f m a te r ia l fa c t c o n c e r n in gw h e th e rit
w as o r“ s ho ul d ha ve b e e n o bv i o us to the pol i c y m aker s t hatthe r i sk of i nj ury w as a ‘ h i gh l y p red i ctab l e con seq u en ce’of th e fail u re to train

. ” Agai n, t he m aj o r i t y i m po s e s a b ur de n o nP e t e r s o n, w hi c h e xc e e ds w hatt he l aw requi res of

hi m . Pe te rs o n n eed on l y present suf f i ci en tevi den ce, w h i ch creat es a di spu t e of fact concerni n g t h e C i t y’ s fai l u re t o t rai n . I n evi den ce are: 1) O f f i c e rH o r ne r ’ s d eposi t i o n t e s t i m o ny i n whi c h s he s t at e d s he coul d n otrecal ltrai n i n g abou tthe ad equ ate use of f orce f or a given setof ci rcum st an ces; 2) O f f i cer B al l ard’ s d e posi t i on t est i m on y, i n w h i ch h e coul d n ot
r ec al lr ec eivi ng t r ai ni ng on di f fer enc es be t w ee n pass ive and ac t ive resi st an ce i n rel ati on t o t h e am ou n tof f orce u sed; i n w h i ch h e st atedN o. 08- 10258

26 a n o ffic e rca n n o t e v a lu a te ris k o f inju r yif th e r e is n o tr a in in g ; in
w h i ch h e st ated he cou l d n otrec al lb e in gto ld th ere w as a ri sk of i nj u ry w h en u si n g a kn ee str i ke; in w h i ch h e st ated he w as w ri t t en up p r e v i o u s l y f

o r t a s e r i n g a n i n d iv i d u a l , wh o wa s h a n d c u f fe d , b ut he w as no tt o l d why t he a c tw as d an ger o us ; i n whi c h he s t at e d he
w a s n e v e rre tr a in e do n th e u s e o f ta s e r s ; a n d in w h ic h h e s ta te d if h e h a d k n o w le d g e r e g a r d in gris k o f u s in gk n e e s tr ik e s , it w o u ld
m a k e a d iffe r e n c e in h is ca lc u la tio n o f u s e o f fo r c e ; 3) C hi ef M endoz a’ s depos i t i on t es t i m ony, i n w hi c h he st at ed he w as t h e overal l au t h ori t y f or t rai n i n g an d ap provi n g t rai n i n g pol i ci es of th e d ep a rtm en t; i n w h i ch h e sta ted an off ic e r is l ess l i k ely to h i t a pe r s o n i n a pl ac e t hatw i l lc aus e m o r e da m age i f t he y unde r s t and t he r e as o ns f

o rdo i ng s o ; a nd i n whi c h he s t at e d c o nt i nui ng e d u c a tio n d o e s n o t in c lu d e tr a in in go n k n e e s tr ik e s , to h is k n o w le d g e ; 4 ) R e c o r d s re fle c tin ga lle g a tio n s o f e x c e s s iv e fo r c e ; 5 ) As u m m a r ych a r t, d e ta ilin ga lle g a tio n s o f e x c e s s iv e fo r c e ; 6 ) R e p o r ts o f th e ch a in o f c o m m a n d ; 7) A n af f i da vi t of an i n st ructor at t h e pol i ce acad em y, w h i ch st ates t he Ci t y pr o vi de s t r ai ni ng i n use of fo r c e att he po l i c e a c ad e m y and
s ubs e que nt l y e ve r y t w e nt y- f o urm o nt hs , i n t he f

o r m o f c on t i nui ng ed u ca ti on , w h i ch ex cee d the m i n i m u m trainin g re q u i rem en ts im p o s e d b yth e s ta te ; 8) O f f i c e rH o r ne r ’ s t r ai ni ng r e c o r d; a nd 9) O f f i c e rBal l ar d’ s t r ai ni ng r e c o r d. In revi ew i n g t h i s evi den ce, t h e court’ s t ask i s on l y t o deter m i n e w h et h er t h ere i s a fact u aldi spu t e regardi n g th e C i t y’ s fai l u re t o t rai n . Th e evi den ce show s o f

f i c e r s und e r go pr e l i m i nar y t r ai ni ng att he po l i c e a c ad e m y, w hi chN o. 08- 10258

27 i n cl u des u se of

f orce t rai n i n g, an d c on t i n u i n g edu cat i on t rai n i n g on u se of f orce. E xecutive C h i ef

D epu t y K n ebl i ck’ s af f i da vi tstat es each p ol i ce of f i cer i s t rai n ed i n t he a ppl i c at i o n o f

t he G e ne r alO r de r s , w hi c h i nc l ude s a G e ne r alO r de ro n t he
u s e o f fo r c e , a n d is re q u ir e d to co m p lyw ith th e G e n e r a l O r d e r s . The m ore di sconcert i n g pi eces of evi den ce of

fered by the C i t y, how ever, are O ff ic e rH o r n e r ’s a n d O ff ic e r B a ll a r d ’s t r a in in g r e c o r d s . W h il e O ff ic e rH o r n e r ’s
recor d sh ow s s h e rec eived conti n u i n g edu cat i on on the u se of f orce, O f

f i cer B al l ard’ s r ecord r eveals he h as not. Peters on ha s s h ow n t h rough O f f i cer B al l ard’ s t est i m on y t h at h e w as di sci pl i n ed on a pri or occasi on f or u si n g a taser
on a h an dcu f

fed i n di vi du al

. O f

f i cer B al l ard’ s tr ai n i n g recor d d oes n ot r e f l e c ta ny
r et r ai ni ng on us e o f

a t as er , des pi t e hi s i nappro pri at e pr i oruse . M or e c r i t i c al l y, si n ce t h e t i m e O f

f i cer B al l ard j oi n ed t h e pol i ce depa rt m en t , he h as n ever t ak en a c o ur s e di r e c t e d s pe c i f i c al l y att he use of

fo r c e , ac c o r di ng t o hi s t r ai ni ng r e c o r d. P et erson con t en ds h i s s h ow i n g t h at nei t h er of f i cer coul d rem em ber
w h e th e r t h e yre c e iv e d u s e o f fo r c e tr a in in gd e m o n s tr a te s th e tr a in in gis i nad e qua t e . C h i ef

M e ndo z a t e s t i f

i e d he di d no tkno w ho w o f t e n kne e - s t r i ke t rai n i n g occurred. W h i l e b ot h O f f i cers B al l ard an d H orner t est i f i ed they w ere t aug htt he di s t ra c t i o nar y t e c hni que o f t he kne e s t r i ke , ne i t he rw as t aug htt he poss i bl e phy s i c alc o ns e que nc e s o f us i ng s uc h a s t r i ke

. Chi e f M e ndo z a, t he overal lau t h ori t y f

or app rovi n g t rai n i n g an d the content of the D efen sive T act i cs M anua l , t e s t i f

i e d t hatt r ai ni ng c o nc e nt r at e d o n w h eret o s t r i ke , r at he rt han t he
r e pe r c us s i o ns o f

s t r i ki ng an i ndivi dua li n a pa r t i c ul ar pl ac e . H e s t at e d t r ai ni ng pr o ba bl y c o ve r e d t hat“ a l i t t l e bi t
. ” H e agr e e d d ur i ng hi s de po s i t i o n t e s t i m o ny t hata n o f

f i c e rw o ul d be l e s s l i ke l y t o s t r i ke i n a pl ac e t hatw o ul d c aus e s e r i o us da m age i f

t h e of f i cer kn ew t h e consequ en ces, an d h e conceded t h e t yp e of i nj u ry P et erson rec eived coul d resul tf rom a kn ee st ri ke.N o. 08- 10258

The majority’s a ssertionth at the depart ment’s failure to reprimand Officer Horner 2 for “an instance of faultyrecordkeeping”d oes not raisea ge nuine issue of material fact o n wheth er the obviou s an d “highlypr ed ic t ab leconsequ ence s” of this failure would lea d to the violation of citi zen s’ Fourth Amen dment rights ignore s the purpose of the process of reporting the use of force. The express purpose of the Use of Force report s is “to determine if there is a need for chan ge s indepartmental procedures or additional trainin g for the officer.” If the depart ment does not enforce the reporting requirement, itessentiallybypasses the procedure me ant toinformit of what , if

any , u seof forc e tr ainingi s nec es saryto en surecitiz en s’ co n stitution al ri ghtsarenotviolate d. 28 W he n t hi s e vi de nc e i s v i e w e d i n l i ghto f t he pr e vi o u s d i s c u s s i o n c o nc e r ni ng t h e U se of

F orce report s, see sup raPar tI I
. A of t hi s di s s e nt , r e as o nab l e m i nds 2 coul d i n fer a fai l u re to tr ai n a n d del iberate i n di f ference. T h e pol i cym ak er, C h i ef M en doza , i s hard l y concerned w i t h t ra ini n g of f i cers on the po t e nt i alf o rh a r m. I t i s a x i o m a t i c t ha t i f a n o f f i c e r d o e s no t kn o w t he r i s k o f i nj ur y i n a p p l y i ng a kn ee st ri ke, t h ere i s n o w ay he can ap propri atel y assess w h en to u se it based
u pon t h e tot a l i t y of

t h e ci rcum st an ces. Th i s w ou l d be tr u e of an y of t h e use of f orce t echn i qu es becau se of f i ce rs receive n o t rai n i n g on t h e reperc u ssi on s of
u si n g such t echn i qu es, as C h i ef M e n doza t est i f

i ed. H en ce, i ti s c l ear P et erson h a s cr e a te d a d is p u te o f m a te r ia l fa c t r e g a r d in gth e C ity ’ s fa ilu r e to a d e q u a te ly t r ai n i t s of

f i c er s suf

f i c i entt o s ubm i tt o aj ury.

C. F i n al l y, t h e m aj ori t y a dd ress es Peters on ’ s argum en tt h e C i t y h as a custom , as evi den ced b y a p ersi st en t , w i desp read p att ern of excess ive f

orce du ri n g i n vest i gati on s of “ m i l d cri m es, ” t o w h i ch the pol i ce depa rt m en t ’ s c h ai n of
com m an d acqui esces by c i t i n g of f i cers f or l esserof

fen ses, exon erat i n g t h em f or u se of f orce, an d on l y m i l dl y di sci pl i n i n g of f i cers w h o are f

ou n d to h ave u sed
e x c e s s iv e fo r c e , w h ic h a m o u n ts to ta c it a p p r o v a l o f th e u s e o f e x c e s s iv e fo r c e . To de m o ns t r at e t he ex i s t e nc e of a c us t o m o rpo l i c y, Pe t e r s o n pr e s e nt s t he fo llo w in ge v id e n c e : 1) C h i ef

M en doza ’ s deposi t i on t est i m on y, i n w h i ch h e st ates al l egat i ons of

of f i c ers’u se of

ex c es sive f

or c e i n t he f

i el d s houl d beN o. 08- 10258

29 i nves t i gat ed; i n w hi c h he s t at es m aki ng an al l egat i on o f ex c es sive fo r c e a g a in s t o th e ro ffic e r s is a d e fe n s iv e m e a s u r e t o d e fe n d o n e s e lf
a n d , u ltim a te ly , th e o ffic e rm a yn o t b e w illin gto co m e fo r w a r d ; in
w h i ch h e st ates h e i s t h e u l t i m ate di sci pl i n ari an ; i n w h i ch h e st ates a poli ce of

f i cer m ay u se f

orce t o eff

ect u ate an a rres t/ detenti on even i f t h ere i s no l egal basi s f or t h e arrest/ detenti on (w h i ch the di st ri ct
c o u r t s a id w a s o n ly a n o p in io n a n d d o e s n o t a ffe c t o ffic ia l p o lic y); in
w hi c h he discu sse s an i nci dentw her e o f f i c er s i l l egal l y e nt er ed an ap ar t m e nta nd t as e r e d a n i ndivi dua li n the cl o s e tc o ve r e d wi t h a bl ac k t r as h b agt hr e e t o f o urt i m e s unt i lh e w as unc o ns c i o us a nd concl u des i tw as not exces sive f orce; 2) Asum m ary cha rtw h i ch show s 27 al l egati on s of excess ive f

orce ove ra f ive- yearper i od, w hi c h w er e a c t ual l y i nve s t i g a t e d b y I nt er nal Af fai r s –wher e o nl y f

o urc o m pl ai nt s w e r e s us t ai ne d; 3 ) A n i n t e r v i e w o f

a t h i r d

- p a r t ywi t n e s s , wh o s a w p o l i c e c h a s e d o wn a m an o n a b i cycl e a n d be athi m unt i lhi s fac e b l e d–w he r e t he
c har ge o f e xc e s s ive f o r c e w as no t s us t ai ne d ag ai ns to ne o f f i c e ra nd
u n f ou n ded f

or ot h ers; 4) A n i n te ro ffi ce c orres pon den ce f rom E xecutive D epu t y C h i ef K ne bl i c k, reversi ng a f i ndi ng o f

“ no ts us t ai ne d” b y t he r e s to f t he cha i n of com m an d, in on e inci den tw h ere an of f

- du t y of

f i cer st ruck t w o i ndivi dua l s o n t he b ac ks o f t he i rhe ad s w i t h hi s g un; a nd 5) As um m ar y s t at em ent , w her e apol i c e o f f i c erknee- st r uck a m an w ho w as l ay i ng o n t he g r o und be c aus e he t e ns e d, e ve n t ho ugh t he
m an w as act u al l y t h e ow n er of t h e car w ash w h ere t h e pol i ce of f i cer w as i nve s t i ga t i ng a bur gl ar y, w hi c h r e s ul t e d i n t he o f f i c e rb r e ak i ng t h e ow n er’ s nose–the al l egati on s of excessive f

orce w ere deem ed unf o unde d.N o. 08- 10258

30 Pet e r s o n c o nt e nds t he s e a l l e ga t i o ns putt he C i t y o n not i c e t hatt he r e i s an i s s ue w i t h i t s of

f i c er s usi ng exc es sive f or c e and i ti s s o co m m on and w el l

- se t t l ed t hat i tr e pr e s e nt s a po l i cy, w h i ch i s t ac i t l y c o ndo ne d b y t he c hai n o f c o m m and , up t h rough t h e C h i ef

of P ol i ce. T o d em on st rat e the C i t y h as a p ol i cy w h i ch exp ress l y den ou n ces t h e use of f orce, t h e C i t y of

fers t h e f

ol l ow i n g evi den ce: 1) G en eralO rders r egard i n g t h e use of excess ive f

orce; 2) An af f i da vi to f

Exe c ut ive D e put y Chi e f K ne bl i c k, w ho st at e s t he G en eralO rders are provi ded t o al lpol i ce of f i cers of t h e pol i ce de pa r t m e ntr e ga r di ng t he us e o f f o r c e , a n d t he po l i c e de pa r t m e nt sup ports t h i s pol i cy t h rough t rai n i n g an d d i sci pl i n e; 3 ) T h e cl a im th e r e is n o e v id e n c e th e p o lic e d e p a r tm e n t o ffic ia ls acqu i esced t o excess ive f orce; 4 ) T h e C it yc o n d u c t e d a r ig o r o u s in v e s t ig a t io n o f P e t e r s o n ’s
c o m pl ai nt ; a nd 5) P et er so n’ s s um m ar y char t , w hi c h sho w ed 4 f i ndi ngs of

ex c es sive f orce, no di sci pl i n e i n 18 i n vest i gati on s, an d 1 case, w h i ch i n vol ved t h e use of

a kn ee st ri ke. T h e m aj ori t y i n i t i al l y couch es t h e i n qu i ry as “ w h et h er Peters on ha s presented
s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e to e s ta b lis h a fa c t q u e s tio n fo rm u n ic ip a l lia b ilityo n th e b a s is t hatt he C i t y m ai nt ai ned an of f i c i alpol i c y t hatw as per m i ss ive of ex c es sive for ce .” In t h e n ext i n st an ce, h ow ever, t h e m aj ori t y couch es t h e i n qu i ry as a que s t i o n o f

l aw, sug ge s t i ng “ [ t ] he l e ga lq ue s t i o n t hus pr e s e nt e d i s w he t he rt he 27 com pl a in ts o n w h i ch P et erson rel i es are suff i ci en tt o est abli sh a p att ern of
ex cess ive f

orce tha t can be saidto rep rese n t of fi ci a lpo l i cy . ” It i s n ot ou r du t y t o ad dress t h e l att er qu est i on . T h e app ropri ate questi on i s w h et h er Peters on ha s presented suf f i ci en tevi d e n ce t o cr eate a di spu t e of
m ater i alfacta b ou tt h e exi st en ce of a w i desp read p att ern of excess ive f

orceN o. 08- 10258

31 c o n d o n e d b yth e C ity

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t m a d e c le a rt h a t “[o ]n c e t h o s e o ffic ia ls
w h o ha ve t h e pow er t o m ak e of f i ci alpolicy on a parti cul ar i ssue h ave been i de nt i f i e d, i ti s f

o rt he j ur y t o de t e r m i ne w he t he rt he i r de c i s i o ns ha ve c aus e d t he d e p r iv a tio n o f r ig h ts a t is s u e b yp o l ic ie s w h ic h a ffir m a tiv e lyco m m a n d th a t it occur, or by acqu i escence i n a l on gst an di n g practi ce or cu st om w h i ch consti t u t es th e ‘ stan d a rd op era ti n g p roce d u r e ’of th e local gov ern m en tal en ti ty. ” Jet tv. D a lla s In d e

p . S ch

. D ist. , 491 U
. S. 701, 737, 109 S. C t
. 2702, 2724 ( 1989) (ci t ati on s om i t t ed). I ti s f or t h e j u ry now t o deter m i n e w h et h er 27 i n st an ces of
exc es sive f

or c e a l l egat i ons ar e r ef l ec t ive of

a st andi ng ope r at i ng pr oc edur e t hat
m a yh a v e ca u s e dth e d e p r iv a tio n o f P e te r s o n ’ s rig h ts
. T h e m ajo r ity , lik e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t, r e lie s o n th i s co u r t’s d e c is io n in P i n edav. C i ty of

Hou st on , 2 9 1 F
. 3 d 3 25 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) , and c onc l udes 27
com pl ai n t s of

exces sive f

orce are i n suff

i ci en tt o est abli sh a p att ern of use of
e xc e s s i ve force . I tpo i nt s o utt hati n Pi ne da11 i n ci den t s of w arran t l ess en t ry di d no ts upp o r tapa t t e r n o f unc o ns t i t ut i o nalw ar r ant l e s s e nt r y be c aus e t he of f i cers i n t h e 11 i n ciden t s r eported ei t h er c on sent orexi gen tci rcum st an ces,
w h ic h w a s e q u iv o c a l e v id e n c e o f F o u r th A m e n d m e n t c o m p lia n c e . The fac t s a nd c i r c um s t anc e s i n Pi ne daare rea d i l y d i sti n gu i sh a b l e. F i rst, i n Pi ne da , 2 91 F. 3d at3 28 , t he pl ai nt i f f a l l e ge d t he Ci t y o f H o us t o n ha d a custom o f perm i t t i n g w arran t l ess searches of res i den ces. P et erson’ s al l eged
cu stom i s m u ch n a rrow er: th e u se o f ex cess ive f orce i n vio la tion of th e F ou rth A m en dm en tdu ri n g i n vest i gati on s of “ m i l d cri m es, ” t o w h i ch the pol i ce dep art m en t ’ s c h ai n of com m an d acqui esces by c i t i n g of f i cers f or l esserof

fen ses, exon erat i n g t h em f

or u se of f

orce, an d on l y m i l dl y di sci pl i n i n g of f i cers w h o are f ou n d to h ave u sed excessive f orce, w h i ch am ou n t s to t aci tapp rovalof t h e use o f ex c e s s ive fo r c e . U nl i ke i n Pi ne da , w h e r e th e a lle g e d m u n ic ip a l cu s to m w o u ld ap pl y t o al lw arran t l ess searches i n an y i n st an ce, P et erson ’ s a ll eged cust om f ocuses on m i n or c ri m es, w h ere t h e chai n - of

- com m an d u l t i m atel y exon erat es orN o. 08- 10258

Two incidents described in the summarych art occurred in 200 7. 3 32 fin d s th e cla im u n s u s ta in e d o ris s u e s o n lym ild d is c ip lin e w h e n th e cla im is fo u n d e d

. S econd , P et erson’ s prof fer of evi den ce concerni n g t h e u se of excess ive f

orce a s a C itycu s to m co n s is ts o f m o r e t h a n d o u b le th e n u m b e ro f q u a n tifia b le al l egati o ns t han w e r e o f fe r e d i n Pi ne da

. I n Pi ne da , t he c o ur tr e vi e w e d t he p r o ffe ro f 1 1 a lle g e d in c id e n ts , w h i c h o c c u r r e d o v e ra p e r io d o f m o r e th a n s ix ye a rs “i n o n e of th e N a ti on ’ s l a rg est ci ti es a n d po l i ce forces

. ” Se ei d. at329, 331
n . 24. H ere, P et erson rel i ed on hu n dreds of pag es of

report s, w h i ch h e conden sed in to h is S u m m a r yC h a r t, o v e ra p e r io d fr o m 2 0 0 1 to 2 0 0 5
. T h is co u r t o p in e d in 3 P i n e da , h o we v e r , t h a t r e l y i n g o n p r e v i o u s o f fe n s e r e p o r t s c o u l d l e a d t o t he “pra cti ca leff

ect” of “req u i r [in g ] th e C i ty to d efen d ‘ ca ses w i th i n cas es.’” I d. at 32 9. W hi l e t hat m ay be a “ pr ac t i c al e f fe c t” s o m e t i m e s , i t i s no t ne c e s s ar i l y t he
c a s e h e r e . H ere, P et erson al l eges not s i m pl y t h at t h ese al l egati on s show a custom of pe r m i t t i ng t he us e o f e xc e s s ive f o r c e . Rat he r , Pet e r s o n c o nt e nds t h ese al l egat i ons , gl eaned f r om t he num er ous r epo r t s he e xam i ned, s how the C i t y had
no t i c e o f

s uc h v i o l at i o ns , w hi c h wer e r e vi e w e d b y t he c hai n- o f

- c o m m and , e vi nc i ng a f

l awed s ys t e m b y w hi c h va r i o us po l i c e o f f i c e r s at di f

fe r e nt l e ve l s o f

t he
c hai n -of

- c om m and co ul d notordi d notagr ee on w het herex c es sive f or c e w as use d, w hi c h has led to t he ac qui es c enc e o rc ondonat i on o f t he use of

ex c es sive f orce. Forecl osi n g t h e u se of su ch evi den ce, w h i ch m i gh tsh ow to t h e t ri er of fact t hat t he C i t y has not i c e of a pro bl em and c hoos es t o l oo k t he ot her w a y, e s s e n tia llyfo r e c lo s e s m u n ic ip a l lia b ilit y o n a t h e o r yo f “c u s to m .” T h is is
c er t ai nl y nott he r es ultp ort ended by Mon el lv. D ep’ tof S oci al S ervs . , 4 36 U
. S. 6 5 8 , 9 8 S . C t. 2 0 1 8 , 5 6 L . E d . 2 d 6 1 1 (1 9 7 8 ).N o. 08- 10258

Sucha distinction ismadewithoutcons ide ring the re latives i z eo f the res pec tive 4 cities and polic e forces. Obviously, the fact that 27 inci dents occurred in a smaller city with a smaller policedepartment undermines the efficacy of relying on Pineda

. The ma jority’s sugge stion“[n]o re ason able j urycould conclude base d onP eterso n’s evidence that the C ityh ad e stablishedam un ic ip al policy of u sing or condonin g excessive force” is undercut b y the very fact that this panelh as split on the issue of whetherP eterso n estab lish ed a que stionof fact conc erningmunicipal liab ility for purposes of with standingsummary ju dgment. “I ndee d, th e fact th at reaso nab le ju dge s on this court view the evidence differe ntly sugge sts that these factual di sputes [a]re for the jury to resolve.” Tho mpson v. C onn ick , 57 8 F .3 d 2 9 3 , 3 1 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9) (e nb anc) (Pra do , J ., j oining). 33 T h i r d , t h i s c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m Pi ne da bec ause i n addi t i on to produ ci n g a qu an t i f

i ably great er nu m ber of i n ci den t s t o est abli sh the al l eged 4 custom , P et erson of

fers t h e pol i ce depa rt m en t ’ s ow n m axim : “ If it m a kes you l ook good , bu t i t ’ s n ot i n you r report , i t di dn ’ t h ap pen . ” T h e C i t y’ s pol i ce of f i cers a r e ta u g h t t h is id e a a t t h e p o lic e a c a d e m y . T h e o b v io u s c o r o lla r yis “if
som et h i n g i s n otreport ed, i tw i l lnot i m pa ctyou [t h e of f i cer]
. ” T h e ci rcum st an ces o f Pi ne dado n otevi den ce a s i m i l ar un derst an di n g of w i t h h ol di n g i n f

orm ati on f o rt he pur po s e o f

a vo i di ng r e pr i m ando ri nve s t i ga t i o n. Fi nal l y, P e t e r s o n of

fe r s t he t e s t i m o ny o f C hi e f M e ndo z a, w ho c o nc e de d he
w as t he ul t i m at e di s c i pl i nar i an f o rpol i c e of

f i c e r s i n t he pol i c e de pa r t m e nt
. The di st ri ctcourtdeter m i n ed the C i t y di d n otha ve a poli cy perm i t t i n gt h e use of
ex cess ive force i n p a rt b a sed on C h i ef M en d oz a ’ s testi m on y, w h en h e sta ted : “I d o n ’ tb e l i e v e o f

f i c e r s c a n u s e f

o r c e a g a i n s tp e o p l e w i t h o u t
. . . t h e r e b e i n gs o me
r e a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n o rp r o b a b le ca u s e th a t a cr im e h a s b e e n co m m itt e d o ris abou t t o be com m i t t ed. ” H ow ever, sub sequ en t t o st ati n g t h i s op in ion , C h i ef M en doza readi l y st ate d a p o li ce of f i cer m ay l egally u se f orce ev en if

a pol i ce of f i c erdoe s noth a ve a leg a lr i ghtt o e nt era pr ivat e r es i denc e a nd m ake an
a r r e s t. The Rec o r d r e f

l e c t s the f

o l l o w i n g excha n ge betw een P et erson’ s c ou n se la nd Chi e f M e ndo z a dur i ng de po s i t i o n:N o. 08- 10258

34 Q

. (B yM s . H u tc h in s o n ) If th e y d id n ’ t h a v e th e le g a l rig h t t o b e in t he apar t m entand t hey di dn’ thave t he l egalr i ghtt o m ake an arrest , t h en t h ey al so di dn ’ t h a v e t h e l egal ri gh tt o use f orce, corre ct? A

. N o , ma ’ a m. Q

. T h a t’ s n ot corre ct? A

. T h a t’s n o t c o r r e c t. The di s t r i c tc o ur tdi s m i s s e d t hi s pa r t i c u l a rc o m m e n ta s Ch i e f M e n d o z a ’ s o p i n i o n. W h e th e rC h ie f M e n d o z a a c tu a llyb e l ie v e s th e fo r m e ro rth e la tt e ro f h is st atem en t s are fact u al an d c redibi l i t y determ i n ati on s f or t h e j u ry . T h e l att er c o m m e n ta ryco u ldb e co n str u e d a s th e p o li ce d e p a rtm e n t p o li cy m a k e r ’s in te r p r e ta tio n o f th e la w o n th e u s e o f r e a s o n a b le fo r c e . I n Pi ne dat her e i s no i ndi c at i on t he c hi ef of pol i c e m ade a s t at em entt hat
r es em bl ed t he c ont entof C hi ef M endoz a’ s st a tem en t
. A re as onabl e j ury co u ld ret u rn a verdic ti n favor of P et erson i f

i t w ere t o f

i n d, as a m att er of

fact , C h i ef M en doza bel i eves hi s l att er i n t erpret ati on of t h e l aw c o m pli e s w it h t h e st ri ct u res of t h e F ou rt h A m en dm en tan d h e act s i n hi s c ap aci t y as chi ef of t h e pol i ce d e p a r tm e n t o n th a t b e lie f w h e n h e re v ie w s e x c e s s iv e fo r c e cla im s . S ee Frai re , 9 5 7 F .2 d a t 1 2 7 3 (“Ad is p u te a b o u t a m a te r ia l fa c t is g e n u in e ‘if th e e v id e n c e is
su ch tha t a rea s on a b l e j u rycou l d retu rn a v erd i ct f or th e n on m ov i n g p a rty.’”) (fo o tn o te o m itt e d). T h e maj o r i t yf

u r t h e rr e l i e s o n d i c t a f r o m Pi ne da , in w h ich th is co u rt s ta ted t h e si ze of

a p ol i ce d epa rt m en tm ay be rel evan tto d et erm i n i n g w h et h er a s eri es o f i n c i d e n t s c a n b e c a l l e d a p a t t e r n . Wh i l e t h i s g u i d a n c e f r o m Pi ne dac oul d be he l pf uli n t hi s c as e , t he fac ti s t he r e i s no e vi de nc e i n t he Rec o r d c o nc e r ni ng t he
s iz e o f t h e C i t y ’ s p o lic e d e p a r tm e n t. In th e C ity ’ s b r ie f o n a p p e a l, it m e r e ly
ar gues t her e w er e num er ous ar r es t s and det enti ons m ade o vera f ive- year p eriod

. T h e c l ose st t h e C i ty com es to rev ea l i n g h ow m a n y o ff i cers are i n i tsN o. 08- 10258

The ma jority’s review of the City’ s website presented the followingevide nce: “[The 5 City] presentlye m p loys more than 1,50 0 officers, and that there were more than67 ,000 incidents of crime in the last ye ar alo ne.” This led the majorityto conclude : “ [g]ive n the depart me nt’ s s iz e, an d ab se nt anyevidenceof it s tot al nu mb erof arres tsdurin gth e sa metim e perio d, 27incidents of excessive force over a perio d of four ye ars do not reflect apatternth at canbesai d to represe nt offici al policy of condoning excessive force so as to hold theCityli able for the acts of its employe es’ unco nstitution al conduct.” A conclusion base d upon evidence not in the Record is simply insufficie nt to affirm the di strict court’s grant of summaryj udgment. 35 pol i ce depa rt m en ti s w h en i tsta ted i n i t s r epl y i n t h e di st ri ctcourtt h at t h ere w er e “hun dre ds of

tho u sa nds o f

ar r es t s and det ent i ons m ade o vera f ive year p e r io d b yo v e ro n e th o u s a n d (1 0 0 0 ) p o lic e o ffic e r s e m p lo y e d b yth e C ity .” H ow ever, t h e C i t y of fered nothing f

or t h e R ecord t o sup port t h i s bl an ket
c o nt e nt i o n. The a bs e nc e o f a ny s t at i s t i c alev i de nc e i n t he R e c o r d l e av e s g e nui ne i ssues f or t ri al

. Th e nu m ber of i n ci den t s Peters on off ers coul d be the h i gh estor lo w e s t in cit ie s o f a co m p a r a b le s iz e . The m aj o r i t y no ne t he l e s s c o nc l ude s t he Ci t y has de m o n s t r a t e dno g e nui ne i ssues of

m ater i alfactregardi n g a custom cond on i n g t h e use of excess ive f

orce becau se t h e m aj ori t y au gm en t s t h e R ecord by un dertaki n g i t s ow n da t a search
o n th e C ity ’ s w e b s ite

. T h e m ajo r ityh a s e s s e n tia llyd o n e w h a t t h e C itys h o u ld 5 h a v e e n d e a v o r e d to d o in m o v in gfo rs u m m a r yju d g m e n t a n d d id n o t d o . T h is i s nott he c our t ’ s dut y. The c o u rt ’ s t as k i s t o r e vi e w w he t he rPe t e r s o n ha s pr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nt
e vi d e nc e , no ta l lpo s s ibl e e vi de nc e , t o c r e at e a di s put e o f m at e r i alfac tc o nc e r ni ng
w h e t h e rth e C it y h a s a c u s t o m o f c o n d o n in ge x c e s s iv e fo r c e , d e s p it e th e C it y ’s
w ri t t en pol i ci es den ou n ci n g excessive f orce. T h e R ecord sh ow s 27 a l l egati on s of t he us e o f

e xc e s s ive f

o r c e , w hi c h l ar ge l y w e r e uns us t ai ne d b y a po l i c ym ak e rw ho b e lie v e s a p o lic e o ffic e rm a yu s e fo r c e to e ffe c tu a te a n a r r e s t/d e te n tio n , e v e n if th ere i s n o lega l b a sis for t h e a rres t/ d eten ti on . M ost crit i ca l l y, t h e C i ty fail ed to
o ffe ra n yco m p e te n t e v i d e n c e to d e m o n s tr a te w h a t t h o s e 2 7 in c id e n ts m e a n in l i gh tof t h e nu m ber of

ci t i zen en coun t ers f or a c i t y of

com pa rabl e si ze. H en ce,N o. 08- 10258

36 t h ere rem ai n s a di spu t e of fact regardi n g w h et h er t h e C i t y h as a cus to m of
c o n d o n in ge x c e s s iv e fo r c e . III. P et erson ha s pres e n te d su f f i ci en tevi den ce t o cr eate a di spu t e of fact regardi n g w h et h er the C i t y can b e h el d l i able on t h eori es of rat i f i cat i on , a fai l u re to train, an d a cu stom of con d on i n g e xc ess ive f orce . B eca u se i t is t h e cou rt’ s d u ty t o rev iew w h et h er, i n res olvi n g al ldou bts an d i n f erences i n a l i gh tm ost fav ora b l e to th e n on m ov i n g p a rty, P eters on h a s p rese n ted s u ff i ci en t ev i d en ce to creat e a di spu t e of m ater i al fact regardi n g t h e exi st en ce of a pol i cy, t h e di st ri ct court’ s deci si on shou l d be R E V E R S E D , a n d t h i s case sh ou l d be R E M A N D E D f or tr ia l.