Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60944

W I LL I E M CGREGORY, S R. ; L UCY M CGREGORY P l a i n ti ffs-A p p ell a n t s v. T H E C IT YO F JA C K S O N , M IS S IS S IP P I; M AY O R F R A N KM E L T O N , IN HI S OF F I CI AL C AP AC I T YA S MAYO R OF T HE C I T YOF J AC KS ON; JAC K SO N CI TYCO U N CI L; J O H N D O ES A

- Z D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

3: 06- C V

- 00561

B e fo r e W IE N E R , D E N N IS , a n d C L E M E N T , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * T h i s 42 U
. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 cl a i m ag a i n st t h e C i ty of Ja ck son ( “the C i ty”), i ts
m ayorand C i t y Coun c i l , and John D oe pol i c e o f f i c er s ar i se s outof

ev ent s t hat t ook p l ace du ri n g a st an doff at a tir e s h o p ow n ed by W i l l i e M cG regory Sr. ( “ M cG regory” ) (A pp el l an t ) betw een hi s son , W i l l i e M cG regory Jr. ( “ M cG regory Jr
. ” ) and t he J a c ks o n Ci t yp o l i c e . M c G r ego r y’ s al l egat i ons , i f t r ue, ar e di st urbi ng. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 26, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60944

2 B u tM cG regory has brou gh thi s c l ai m s of m u n i ci pa ll ia b il ity un der Mone l lv. New Y ork C i ty D epartm ent of S oci al S ervi ces , 436 U
. S. 658, 694 ( 1978)

. H e has fai l ed t o i dent i f

y a pol i c ym akerw ho can be charg ed w i t h ac t ualor c ons t r uct i ve know l edge of

t he c ust om orpol i c y th a t h e al l ege s l ed t o t he c ons t i t ut i onal
v io la tio n in th is ca s e a s th e la w g o v e r n in gm u n ic ip a l lia b ility re q u ir e s . W e t her ef or e AF FIR M t he gr ant of s um m ar y j udgm entt o t he C i t y.
I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND O n M ay1 8, 2 00 5, M c G r e go r y Jr
. w as pul l e d o ve r f o r o ut s t and i ng
w ar r ant s . H e f

l e d t he s c e ne and w as pur s ue d b y po l i c e t o hi s fat he r ’ s t i r e s ho p,
w h ere a s ta n d o ff betw een M cG regory Jr. an d a l arge group of Jackson pol i ce of f i cers ensu ed. M cG regor y pl e aded w i t h hi s s on t o surrend er and w as overhea rd bya tl e as to ne po l i c e o f f i c e rdo i ng s o . Eve nt ual l y M c G r e go r y Jr
. w as s ho t b y t he pol i ce i n t h e l eg a n d th en surrend ered. M cG regory c am e out of t h e t i re s h op behi nd hi s so n and w as or der ed t o l ay do w n on t he gr ound. H e c om pl i ed by l aying dow n on h i s s t om ach

. W h i l e h e w as on t h e groun d an un i den t i f i ed of f i cer t ol d h i m t o pl ace hi s h an ds beh i n d hi s back an d h an dcu f fed h i m . A n un i den t i f i ed
o f f i c e r( p o t e n t i a l l yt h e s a m e o f f i c e r ) t h e n p u t a g u n t o M c Gr e g o r y ’ s h e a d a nd
o r de r e d hi m t o r o l lo ve r . M c G r e go r y, w ho i s ov e r 60, a dv i s e d t he o f f i c e r t hathe
w as ph ysi cal l y u n able t o do so and t h at t h e h an dcu f fs w ere t oo t i gh t
. T h e of f i cer to ld h im th a t if h e d id n o t t u r n o v e r h e w o u ld “b lo w h is fu c k in gb r a in s o u t.” M c G r e go r y w as s t i l l unab l e t o t ur n o ve r , ho w e ve r , and an o f f i c e r ( ag ai n, potenti al l y t h e sam e of f i cer) ki cked hi m i n t h e si de, bre a k i n g on e of hi s r i bs. M cG rego ry te stif

i ed that he did not know i f i t w as one, t w o, or t h ree of f i cers i n vol ved i n hi s arrest becau se h e di d n otsee t h e of f i cer( s) an d allof

t h e of f i cers present on the scene den i ed, i n t h ei r deposi t i on s, h aving an y i dea w h o arres t ed
oras sa ul t ed M c G r ego r y.N o. 08- 60944

After the lawsuit was file d, the City’ s Le gal Department directed an internal affairs 1 office r, SandraSta sher, to investigate the incident. 3 M c G r ego r y w as put i n a pol i c e c arand t aken t o t he s t at i on, w her e he w as qu est i o n ed. A l t h ou gh M cG regory’ s han dcu f fs w ere c ap able of

bei n g dou bl el o c ke d t o pr e ve ntuni nt e nt i o nal( o r i nt e nt i o nal) t i ght e ni ng, i t a ppe ar s t hatt he po l i c e fai l ed t o e nga ge t hi s fe at ur e . H e c o m pl ai ne d d ur i ng t he r i de t hatt he h an dcu f

fs w ere too ti gh tb u th e w as ignored. A t som e p oi n t a t the st ati on , af t er he c om pl ai ned agai n, hi s handcuf fs w er e r em ov ed. B ec ause hi s l ef t w r i stw as s w o lle n , th e p o lic e o ffic e ra s s ig n e d to d r iv e h im b a c k to h is s h o p a n d re le a s e h im
w a s tol d n ot to h a n d cu ff h i m for th e ri d e, bu t did so an yw a y. U p on retu rn i n g to th e rep a i r sh op M cG reg ory tol d D etective Ja m es R ob erts (“ D etective R ob erts”) t hat he had be en ki c ked i n t he s i de w hi l e handc uf fed. M c G r ego r y de c l i ned an
am bul ance ; hi s w i fe a r r i ved and t oo k hi m t o t he hos pi t al , w her e he w as di agnos ed w i t h a br oken r i b and an a b rasi on o n hi s si de w her e he s ai d he had been ki cked

. T h e rib i nj u ry re q u i red ei gh t w eeks of res t
. M cG regory t est i f i ed t h at he w as perm a n e n tly i nj u red i n t h e i n ci den t – speci f i cal l y t h at he l ost
s e n s a tio n in h is le ft h a n d (h is d o m in a n t h a n d ) a n d co u ld n o lo n g e r g r ip tig h tly
w ith it. Ar e p o r tfi le d b y D e t e c t iv e R o b e r t s o n th e s t a n d o ff r e fl e c t s M c G r e g o r y ’s
c o m pl ai nto f

ha vi ng be e n ki c ke d. H o w e ve r no i nve s t i ga t i o n was do ne a nd n o ac t i on w as t aken unt i l M cG reg ory and hi s w i fe f i l ed s ui t on O c t obe r 6, 2006,
a g a in s t s e v e r a l n a m e d o ffic e r s , th e C ity o f J a c k s o n , t h e m a y o r o f J a c k s o n in h is
o f f i c i alc ap ac i t y, t he J ac ks o n Ci t y Counc i l , and Jo hn D o e s A- Z ( r e pr e s e nt i ng t he pol i ce of f i cers present duri n g t h e arres t )

. T h e l aw sui t so ugh tt o r e c o ve rda m ages 1 f or fal se arr estan d excessi ve u se o f f orce u n der 42 U

. S

. C

. § 1983 an d f or
w r o ngf ula r r e s t , f

a l s e i m p r i s o n m e nt , a s s aul t a nd b at t e r y, m al i c i o us pr o s e c ut i o n,N o. 08- 60944

Mrs. Mc G r eg or y’ s claim rises and fall s with her husb and’ s, so we do not a ddress it 2 separatelyh ere. McGrego r y d idn otbrief the state law clai ms on appeal, and theyar e thus waived

. 4 an d ab u se of

process un der st ate l aw . I n t h e course of the l aw sui t , M cG regory 2 de po s e d m o r e t han 23 o f f i c e r s , i nc l udi ng e ve r y o f f i c e r pr e s e nta t t he s c e ne , no ne o f w h o m a d m itt e d to k n o w in g w h o h a d a r r e s te d M c G r e g o r y a n d c a u s e d h is i nj ur i e s . M c G r e go r y e ve nt ual l y ag r e e d t o di s m i s s t he J o hn Doe o f f i c e r s w i t ho ut pr ej udi c e b e c aus e he c o ul d no ti de nt i f y w ho w as re s po ns i bl e fo r hi s i nj ur i e s . The di st ri ctcourtt h en gran t ed s u m m ary j u dg m en t t o t h e rem ai n i n g defenda n t s on al lcl ai m s on t h e groun ds t h at M cG regory had n o t r a i sed a gen u i n e i ssue of
m at e r i alfac ta s t o w he t he ra c us t o m o r po l i c y e xi s t e d t hat l e d t o hi s i nj ur i e s a nd h ad not r ai sed a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfact as t o w h et h er a pol i cym ak er kn ew o rs ho ul d ha ve kno w n a bo uts ai d c us t o m o r po l i c y e ve n i f i t e xi s t e d. M c G r e g o r y tim e ly a p p e a le d

.
I I . S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW T h i s co u r t rev i ew s a g ra n t of su m m a ry j u d gm en t de no vo . St ov e rv. Ha ttiesb u rgP u b

. S ch

. D ist. , 549 F
. 3d 985 , 991 ( 5th C i r. 200 8 ). S u m m ary ju d g m e n t is a p p r o p ri a te if “th e p le a d in g s , th e d is c o v e r y a n d d is c lo s u r e m a te r ia ls on f i l e, and any af

f i davi t s sho w t hat t her e i s no ge nui ne i ss ue as t o any m at er i al fac tand t hat t he m ovanti s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a m at t erof l aw . ” Fed. R
. C i v. P . 5 6 (c ). A ll d o u b ts m u s t b e r e s o lv e d in fa v o r o f th e n o n m o v in gp a r ty
. C asey E n t ers . , I

n c. v. A m . Hard w are Mu t
. I n s. Co. , 65 5 F
. 2 d 59 8 , 60 2 ( 5 th C i r. U n i t B S e p t. 1 9 8 1 ).

III . A N A L Y S IS O n a pp ealM cG regory con t en ds t h at the C i t y i s l i able f or w rongfularres t
a n d e x c e s s iv e fo r c e u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . It is w e ll-e s t a b l i s h e d th a t t h e r e isN o. 08- 60944

An en banc de cisio n was issue d in Benne tto nApril2 , 1 9 8 4
. Ben n et tv . Cit y of Sli del l , 3 728F .2d 7 62 (5thC ir. 1 984) (enbanc) (en banc). On July9, 198 4, an en banc pe r curiam order was issue d denyinga petition for rehearin g and clarifying th e definitionof policy and custom a s givenab ove. Ben n et t v. Cit y of Sli del l , 735 F.2d 86 1 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc). Futurecites to Benne ttinthis o pinion refer to the primaryenbanc opinion , no t th e per c uriamden ialof the pe tit ion fo r rehe aring. 5 n o res pon d eatsuperi orl i abil i t y u n der § 1983 f or c on st i t u t i on alvi ol ati on s. Mo n ell , 436 U
. S. at694. I nst ead, a m uni c i pal i t y c an be hel d l i abl e under§ 1983
o n ly if th e p la in tiff

ca n es ta b li sh ( 1 ) a n o fficia l po li cy or cu sto m , o f w h ich (2) a p o li cy m a k e r c a n b e ch a rg e d w ith a c t u a l o r c o n str u ctiv e k n o w led g e , a n d (3) a
c o n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n w h o s e “m o v in gfo r c e ” is th a t p o lic y o r cu s to m . R i ve r a v. Hou st on I

n d ep. S ch. D i st , 34 9 F
. 3 d 24 4 , 24 7 -24 9 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ). In this ci rcu i t, a “ pol i c y o rc ust om ” i s ei t herof t he f ol l ow i ng: 1 . Ap o lic y s ta te m e n t , o r d i n a n c e , re g u la tio n , o r d e c is io n th a t is o f f i c i al l y ad o p t e da n dp r o m u l g at e d b y t he m uni c i pa l i t y’ s l awm ak i ng of f i cers or by an of

f i ci alt o w h om t h e l aw m ak ers h ave d el egated pol i cy- m ak i n g au t h ori t y; or 2. Ap e rs i st en t , w i desp read p ract i ce of ci t y of f i ci al s orem pl oyees, w hi c h, a l t ho ugh no ta ut ho r i z e d b y o f f i c i al l y adopt e d a nd p rom u l ga ted po l i cy , i s so co m m on an d w ell settl ed a s to con sti tu te a custom t h at fai rl y represents m u n i ci pa lpol i cy. A ct u a lor c o ns t r uc t i ve kno w l e dg e o f s uc h c us t o m m us t be at t r i but ab l e t o t he gov er ni ng body of

t he m uni c i pal i t y o r t o a n of f i c i alt o w hom t hat body has de l egat ed po l i c y- m aki ng aut hor i t y. B en n ett v
. C ity of S lid ell , 735 F
. 2d 861 , 862 ( 5th C i r. 198 4) ( en ban c) ( per c u r ia m ). W h e r e a c u s to m h a s b e e n e s ta b lis h e d , k n o w le d g e m u s t b e a tt r ib u ta b le to a p o lic y m a k e r . B en n ett v
. C ity of S lid ell , 7 28 F
. 2d 7 62, 7 68 ( 5th C i r. 198 4) ( en banc)

. A c t ual know l edge on t he par t of t he pol i c ym akerm ustbe s how n di r ec t l y, 3 but“ [ c] on st ruc t i ve kno w l e dg e m ayb e a t t r i but e d t o t he g o ve r ni ng bo dyo n t he gr ou n d tha t i t w ou l d h a ve k n ow n of th e v i olati on s i f i t ha d pr op erly ex ercised i ts resp on sibi l i ti es.” Id

. H ow ever, “ [ i ] sol ated vi ol ati on s are n ot t h e persi st en t , of t en rep ea ted , con stan t violati on s th a t con sti tu te cu stom a n d po l i cy . ” I d. at768 n. 3.N o. 08- 60944

6 M c G rego r y’ s pri m ar y c l ai m s ee m s t o b e t hat he w as s ubj ec t t o a n unc o ns t i t ut i o nal us e o f e xc e s s i ve f o r c e byw hi c he ve r o f

f i c e r ( s ) ki c ke d hi m i n t he ribs an d h an dcu f

fed h i m , an d that such f orce w as used beca u se the poli ce d ep a rtm en t ha d a cu stom of i gn orin g re p orts of exc ess i ve f orce , fa i l i n g to i nves t i gat e r epo r t s of ex c es sive f

or c e, an d p r ot ec t i ng i t s ow n m em ber s t hro ugh
a c ode of

s i l enc e, t hus al l ow i ng orenc our agi ng pol i ce off i cer s t o us e e xc es sive f orce w i t h ou tfear of repercussi on s. W e n eed n otreach t h e qu est i on of w h et h er M c G r ego r y has pr oduc ed e nough evi denc e t o r ai se a g enuine issue of m at er i al factas t o w h et h er a c u st om of a cod e of si l en ce exi st ed i n t h e Jackson C i t y P ol i ce D e p a r tm e n t b a s e d u p o n t h is o n e in c id e n t. A lth o u g h M c G r e g o r y ’ s a lle g a tio n s , if t r ue, s houl d be of

gre atconc er n t o t he Jacks on C i t y P ol i c e D epar t m ent , t he l aw
r equi r es t hat , ev en as sum i ng he c an sho w a c usto m , M c G r ego r y i dent i f y a po l i c ym ak e rw ho c an be c har ge d wi t h a c t ualo r c on st ruct i ve kno w l e dg e o f t he
c o d e o f s ile n c e th a t h e h a s id e n tifie d a s th e a lle g e d cu s to m . B en n ett , 728 F. 2d at 7 6 8

- 6 9
. Mc Gr e g o r y d i d n o ti d e n t i f y a p o l i c y ma k e r i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e l o w. D e s p ite m e n tio n o f th is fa ilu r e in th e d is tr ic t co u r t’s o p in io n , M c G r e g o r y s till d id
no ti de nt i f

y a po l i c ym ak e ri n hi s i ni t i albr i e f t o t hi s co ur t , nordi d he i de nt i f y o ne in h is re p ly b r ie f e v e n a fte rth is o m is s io n w a s a g a in p o in te d o u t b y th e C ity in i t s r espon se . A t o ralargu m en t , f or t h e f i rstt i m e, M cG regory f i n al l y i den t i f

i ed t h e C it y C o u n c ila s th e p o li c y m a k e r a n d a r g u e d th a t th e p o li c y m a k e r ’s kno w l e dg e c o ul d b e i nfe r r e d f ro m t he a c qui e s c e nc e o f t he Ci t y Counc i li n t he al l eged cover- u p i n t h i s c ase. A rgum en t s not m ad e b el ow a re gen eral l y w ai ved an d can n otbe rai sed f or th e f ir s t tim e o n a p p e a l. See , e . g. , LeMai r e v. La
. D e p’ tof Trans. & D e v. , 480 F. 3d 3 8 3 , 3 8 7 (5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ). E ve n w ere w e to con sider the i d en ti fi ca ti on of th e C i ty C ounci las t he r equi r ed po l i c ym aker , M c G r ego r y has pre se nt ed no evi denc e t hat rai ses a gen u i n e i ssue of m ater i alfact as t o w h et h er t h e C i t y C ou n ci l , or an y of i t s m em bers, w as aw are of t h e al l eged code of

si l en ce orshou l d h ave been aw areN o. 08- 60944

Mc Gre goryals o a pp earst o im ply th at a pr evio u s ca seall egin gp olic e b rutalitya g ain st 4 th e J a ck so nC ityPolic e De part me nt sati sf ie s th e re quir em ent fo r co n structive kn owle dge. See Cit y of J ackso n v. Po wel l , 91 7 S o.2d 59 (Miss. 20 05). To the extentth at McGrego ry’ s argument r e s t s o n th e i d e a th at th e C ity C o u nc il s h o ul d h ave kno wn ab o ut ge n e r allyba d po liceb eh avior (whichi s notth e sa methin ga s ac u st omo f a c ode of sile nce) b ec au seo f a pr evious la ws uita g ain stp olic e de part me nt of fice rsf orb rutality , id. , we note that th e Mi ssi ssipp i Supr em e C ourtd eclin edt o exerci sej uri sdictionoverth e § 19 8 3c laiminth at ca se because of faultyple adin g, butspecifically note d that if it had ente rtained the clai m it would not have fo undth e C ityli ab le because “the re wa s no t ascintill a of evidence p resented to indicateth at the cityhad eithe r an on-th e-bo oks or off-the -boo ks policy whichencour aged th e typeof activity that th e officers engaged in.” Id . Moreimpo rtantly , th e cu stom alle ge d inthis ca sei s n ot po lice b rutality b ut ac od e of sile nce . P

ow el ldid not involve anyallegatio ns of a code of silence and thu s does not estab lishthat the City Council or anyoth er p olicymaker can be ch argedwithc on structive oractu al kn owle dge of thisall egedc u st om . 7 of i t or of th e ev en ts in th i s ca se. H e d i d n ot d ep ose a sin gle m em b er of the C i ty C ou n ci l , t h e C h i ef

of P ol i ce, or an yon e el se w h o coul d qu al i f y as a pol i cym ak er. S i m pl y m en t i on i n g t h e C i t y C ou n ci li n oralargu m en t i s not suff i ci en t t o rai se a ge nui ne i ss ue of m at er i al fac t t hat t he C i t y C ounci lc an be c harge d w i t h ac t ual
o rco ns t r uc t i ve knowl e dg e of sup po r t i ng o r gi vi ng r i s e t o a c o de o f s i l e nc e a m o ng t he J ac ks o n Ci t y P ol i c e D e pa r t m e ntt hatw as t he m o vi ng f o r c e b e hi nd M cG regory’ s i nj u ri es. 4 Mc Gr e g o r y a l s o c l a i ms t h a t t h e C i t y i s l i a b l e f o r w r o n g f

u l a r r e s t
. He contend s that the p ol i ce kn ew gen eral l y t h at he w as t ryi n g t o convi n ce hi s s on t o sur r ender and t hat t her e w as t her ef or e no r eas on t o t ake hi m i n to cu stody. M cG regory does not c l ari f y w h at custom h e b el i eves g ave ri se to hi s arr est , nor doe s he i dent i f

y a pol i c ym aker w ho c an be c harge d w i t h ac t ualorc ons t r uct i ve kno w l e dg e o f

a ny al l e ge d c us t o m l e ad i ng t o hi s a r r e s t , a pa r t f r o m t he
a fo r e m e n tio n e d co d e o f s ile n c e . T h is cla im m u s t t h e r e fo r e fa il a s w e ll. T h e fact s i n t h i s c ase are deeply t roub l i n g, an d w e do n otadd ress w h et h er M cG regory h a s a c ase aga i n stt h e of f i cers (i n t h ei r i n di vi du alcapaci t i es)
r e s p o n s ib le fo ra r r e s tin gh im , fo r cu ffin gh im to o tig h tly , o r fo r tr a n s p o r tin gh im i n hand c uf

fs af t erhi s w r i sti nj uri es w ere a l ready know n. W e ho l d onl y t hat
w ith o u t p r o v id in ga n y e v id e n c e a s to w h e th e r th e C ity C o u n c il k n e w o r s h o u ldN o. 08- 60944

8 h ave k n ow n abou tt h e al l eged co d e of si l en ce ort h e even t s i n t h i s c ase, M c G r ego r y c annot s urvive sum m ar y j udgm enton t he q u estio n of m uni c i pal l i ab i l i t y f

or t he a l l e ge d c o ns t i t ut i o nalv i o l at i o ns t hatl e d t o hi s i nj ur i e s . The g r a n t o f s u m m a r y ju d g m e n t is A F F IR M E D
.