Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1142473.html
Timestamp: 2019-09-16 21:41:27
Document Index: 443246840

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20021983', '§\u20021983', '§\u20021983', '§\u20021983', '§\u20021983', '§\u20029', '§\u20028', '§\u20028', '§\u20021983', '§\u20021983']

CHRISTIE v. IOPA 10 | FindLaw
CHRISTIE v. IOPA 10
Roger CHRISTIE and Ernest Aaron Anderson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. G. Kay IOPA, in her personal capacity; Jay Kimura, in his personal capacity; the County of Hawai‘i; and Does 1-10, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 98-16547.
Before: FARRIS, NOONAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges. Steven D. Strauss, Hilo, Hawaii, for the plaintiffs-appellants. Joseph Kamelamela and Steven Christensen, Deputy Corporation Counsel, County of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii, for the defendants-appellees.
In this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs allege that a deputy prosecutor for the County of Hawaii violated their constitutional rights. The district court granted the County's motion for summary judgment, holding that the County is not legally responsible for the deputy prosecutor's acts. For the reasons that follow, we affirm as to plaintiff Christie, but reverse as to plaintiff Anderson.
We review de novo a district court's grant of summary judgment to determine “whether the district court correctly applied the law and if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact.” Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998).
Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides in part:
(Emphasis added.) Congress intended the term “person” to include municipalities, such as the County here. See Monell v. Department of Social Serv. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Nevertheless, Congress did not intend to create respondeat superior liability. See id. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (“[A] municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”); see also Board of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403, 117 S.Ct. 1382, 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (“We have consistently refused to hold municipalities liable under a theory of respondeat superior.”). Instead, Congress intended to hold municipalities liable only when “action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018. “The ‘official policy’ requirement ‘was intended to distinguish acts of the municipality from acts of employees of the municipality,’ and thereby make clear that municipal liability is limited to action for which the municipality is actually responsible.” Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 479-80, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986) (emphasis in original).
Although a constitutional violation must result from “official municipal policy,” a county need not expressly adopt the policy. It is sufficient that the constitutional violation occurred pursuant to a “longstanding practice or custom.” Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir.1992); see Brown, 520 U.S. at 404, 117 S.Ct. 1382 (“[A]n act performed pursuant to a ‘custom’ that has not been formally approved by an appropriate decisionmaker may fairly subject a municipality to liability on the theory that the relevant practice is so widespread as to have the force of law.”).
Plaintiffs cannot satisfy the requirement of a longstanding practice or custom, because they allege to the contrary that a county official has singled them out for unique treatment. A single constitutional deprivation ordinarily is insufficient to establish a longstanding practice or custom. See Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir.1996) (“Liability for improper custom may not be predicated on isolated or sporadic incidents; it must be founded upon practices of sufficient duration, frequency and consistency that the conduct has become a traditional method of carrying out policy.”); Thompson v. City of Los Angeles, 885 F.2d 1439, 1443-44 (9th Cir.1989) (“Consistent with the commonly understood meaning of custom, proof of random acts or isolated events [is] insufficient to establish custom.”).
There are, however, three situations in which isolated constitutional violations are sufficient to establish a municipal “policy.” We consider each in turn.
First, a municipality can be liable for an isolated constitutional violation when the person causing the violation has “final policymaking authority.” See City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 123, 108 S.Ct. 915, 99 L.Ed.2d 107 (1988) (plurality) (“[O]nly those municipal officials who have ‘final policymaking authority’ may by their actions subject the government to § 1983 liability.”); Gillette, 979 F.2d at 1347 (“[T]he Supreme Court held that a single decision by a municipal policymaker may be sufficient to trigger section 1983 liability under Monell, even though the decision is not intended to govern future situations.”). Whether an official has final policymaking authority is a question for the court to decide based on state law. See Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 105 L.Ed.2d 598 (1989) (“[W]hether a particular official has ‘final policymaking authority’ is a question of state law. As with other questions of state law relevant to the application of federal law, the identification of those officials whose decisions represent the official policy of the local government unit is itself a legal question to be resolved by the trial judge before the case is submitted to the jury.”) (emphasis in original) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court held that Hawaii Prosecutor Kimura possessed final policymaking authority to decide whom to prosecute and whether to approve plea agreements. See, e.g., Marsland v. First Hawaiian Bank, 70 Haw. 126, 130, 764 P.2d 1228 (1988) (County prosecutors have been delegated “primary authority and responsibility for initiating and conducting criminal prosecutions within their respective county jurisdictions.”); Amemiya v. Sapienza, 63 Haw. 424, 427, 629 P.2d 1126 (1981) (stating the same principle). On appeal, the County does not dispute that holding.
Plaintiffs allege, however, that deputy prosecutor Iopa violated their constitutional rights. “Authority to make municipal policy may be ․ delegated by an official who possesses such authority․” Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 124, 108 S.Ct. 915 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the first question on appeal is whether Kimura (or Kimura's predecessor Ono) 2 delegated to Iopa final policymaking authority to decide whom to prosecute and whether to approve plea agreements.3
The Court in Praprotnik recognized that “special difficulties” arise when a plaintiff alleges that an official has delegated policymaking authority:
If the mere exercise of discretion by an employee could give rise to a constitutional violation, the result would be indistinguishable from respondeat superior liability. If, however, a city's lawful policymakers could insulate the government from liability simply by delegating their policymaking authority to others, § 1983 could not serve its intended purpose.
Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 483 n. 12, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (emphasis in original); see Fiorenzo v. Nolan, 965 F.2d 348, 351 (7th Cir.1992) (“[A] municipality is not liable merely because the official who inflicted the alleged constitutional injury had the discretion to act on its behalf; rather, the official in question must possess final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the challenged action.”). In making these determinations, courts consider whether the official's discretionary decision is “constrained by policies not of that official's making” and whether the official's decision is “subject to review by the municipality's authorized policymakers.” Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127, 108 S.Ct. 915.
Applying those principles, the court in Hyland v. Wonder, 117 F.3d 405 (9th Cir.), as amended, 127 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1148, 118 S.Ct. 1166, 140 L.Ed.2d 177 (1998), held that there had been a delegation of final policymaking authority. There, the San Francisco superior court judges possessed final policymaking authority over the Juvenile Probation Department. See id., 117 F.3d at 415. The superior court judges, however, “left the internal management of the Juvenile Probation Department to [the chief juvenile probation officer] and attempted not to interfere.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The superior court judges also “did not formulate any policy” regarding internal management of the department. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The delegation thus satisfied both criteria identified in Praprotnik. Not surprisingly, then, this court held that the superior court judges had delegated final policymaking authority to the chief juvenile probation officer. See id. at 415-16.
By contrast, this court has refused to hold that the Los Angeles chief of police had delegated final policymaking authority to rank-and-file police officers. See Trevino, 99 F.3d at 920 (“The police officers who shot Bahena were not ‘officials with final policy-making authority’ and they were not ordered to shoot by the police chief, the City Council or anyone else possessing final policy-making authority.”); Los Angeles Police Protective League v. Gates, 907 F.2d 879, 882-83, 890 (9th Cir.1990) (stating a similar proposition).4
Specifically, the Hawaii charter gives the prosecutor the authority to “appoint deputies.” County of Hawaii Charter § 9-4 (1991). The charter does not define the duties or powers of deputy prosecutors. Citing Okuda v. Ching, 71 Haw. 140, 785 P.2d 943 (1990) (per curiam), Plaintiffs argue that the Hawaii Supreme Court has held that deputy prosecutors possess final policymaking authority. We are not persuaded.
In Okuda, the prosecutor for the City and County of Honolulu recused himself from any involvement in the defendant's case. See id. at 142, 785 P.2d 943. Before the recusal, the prosecutor's office had appointed a private lawyer to serve as the deputy prosecutor for the case. See id. at 141-42, 785 P.2d 943. The defendant argued that, once the prosecutor had recused himself, the private lawyer could not serve as a deputy prosecutor, because the charter allowed private lawyers to try cases only under the “direction of the prosecuting attorney.” Id. at 143-44, 785 P.2d 943. The Hawaii Supreme Court disagreed:
Under Charter § 8-105, the prosecuting attorney is empowered to appoint deputies, and under the provisions of Charter § 8-104, it is obvious that it is intended that those deputies may perform the functions of the prosecutor․
The Hawaii court's decision in Okuda establishes that deputy prosecutors have the power to perform many of the duties assigned to the prosecutor and that, in the process, they necessarily exercise broad discretion. As noted above, however, delegating discretion is not equivalent to delegating final policymaking authority. See Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 126, 108 S.Ct. 915 (“If the mere exercise of discretion by an employee could give rise to a constitutional violation, the result would be indistinguishable from respondeat superior liability.”). Nothing in Okuda suggests that a county prosecutor necessarily delegates final policymaking authority to deputy prosecutors; at most, Okuda holds that a county prosecutor can delegate that authority. However, the record reveals that the County Prosecutor did not choose to make such a delegation to Iopa here.
The County Prosecutor, not Iopa, created “general policies” for determining when to charge a defendant. More significantly, Iopa's immediate supervisor, Ashida, adopted policies for the initiation of felony prosecutions, including the creation of a screening process that he used to decide whom to prosecute. As part of that process, Ashida made sure that all necessary information was in a defendant's file. Based on that information, Ashida then determined whether there was admissible evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had committed the crime alleged. If there was such evidence, Ashida prepared a subpoena request form, listed all the necessary grand jury witnesses, and drafted a proposed indictment. He then assigned the case to a deputy prosecutor to present the case to the grand jury.
Ashida applied that procedure in Plaintiffs' case. He, rather than Iopa, made the initial decision to prosecute Plaintiffs. Under the screening process, deputy prosecutor Iopa then had the authority to “review [the] proposed indictment, make any changes, or contact [Ashida] if she had any concerns.” If Iopa disagreed with Ashida's decision to prosecute Plaintiffs, she had to contact Ashida; she could not decide unilaterally to drop the case.
Iopa likewise lacked final policymaking authority over plea agreements. First, the County Prosecutor, not Iopa, created standards and criteria to govern plea agreements. Second, although Iopa exercised discretion when making and negotiating plea agreements, she generally did not have authority to enter into those agreements when significant concessions were at stake: “All felony plea agreements which contemplate the reduction [or] dismissal of charges shall be approved by the First Deputy or the Prosecuting Attorney.” Again, Iopa's plea agreements were constrained by policies not of her making, and her significant plea agreements were subject to review by the municipality's authorized policymakers. That being so, she lacked final policymaking authority over plea agreements.
A municipality also can be liable for an isolated constitutional violation if the final policymaker “ratified” a subordinate's actions. See Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127, 108 S.Ct. 915. Ordinarily, ratification is a question for the jury. See Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1534 (9th Cir.1995). However, as with any jury question, a plaintiff must establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether a ratification occurred. See, e.g., Covey v. Hollydale Mobilehome Estates, 116 F.3d 830, 834 (9th Cir.), as amended, 125 F.3d 1281 (9th Cir.1997). The district court held that Plaintiffs could not satisfy that requirement.
1. Christie
The district court correctly concluded that plaintiff Christie cannot establish ratification. To show ratification, a plaintiff must prove that the “authorized policymakers approve a subordinate's decision and the basis for it.” Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127, 108 S.Ct. 915; see Gillette, 979 F.2d at 1348 (refusing to find ratification, because “[t]here is no evidence that the City manager made a deliberate choice to endorse the Fire Chief's decision and the basis for it”). Accordingly, ratification requires, among other things, knowledge of the alleged constitutional violation. See Garrison v. Burke, 165 F.3d 565, 572 n. 6 (7th Cir.1999) (holding that the municipality was not liable under § 1983, because it had no knowledge of the alleged constitutional violations); Gattis v. Brice, 136 F.3d 724, 727 (11th Cir.1998) (stating a similar proposition).
After Christie's case was dismissed, but while Anderson's case was still pending, both Plaintiffs filed this action against Kimura. Anderson alleged that Iopa had violated, and was continuing to violate, his constitutional rights. Filing the action thus provided Kimura with notice of Iopa's alleged ongoing constitutional violations. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 634, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) (“[E]ach party is ․ considered to have notice of all facts, notice of which can be charged upon the attorney.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Henry v. County of Shasta, 132 F.3d 512, 518 (9th Cir.1997) (“It is a reasonable inference-indeed, the only reasonable inference-that after Henry filed suit and successfully served process against the county, it knew about the alleged malfeasance of its employees at the jail.”), as amended, 137 F.3d 1372 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 819, 119 S.Ct. 59, 142 L.Ed.2d 46 (1998).
A policymaker's knowledge of an unconstitutional act does not, by itself, constitute ratification. Instead, a plaintiff must prove that the policymaker approved of the subordinate's act. For example, it is well-settled that a policymaker's mere refusal to overrule a subordinate's completed act does not constitute approval. See Weisbuch v. County of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir.1997) (“To hold cities liable under section 1983 whenever policymakers fail to overrule the unconstitutional discretionary acts of subordinates would simply smuggle respondeat superior liability into section 1983.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Gillette, 979 F.2d at 1348 (stating the same principle).
The Supreme Court did not mention deliberate indifference as an exception to the single-incident rule in Praprotnik. After the Supreme Court decided Praprotnik, however, the Court adopted “deliberate indifference” liability and suggested that it can apply to single-incident cases. See City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390, 109 S.Ct. 1197, 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989) ( “But it may happen that in light of the duties assigned to specific officers or employees the need for more or different training is so obvious, and the inadequacy so likely to result in the violation of constitutional rights, that the policymakers of the city can reasonably be said to have been deliberately indifferent to the need.”).6 This court has applied this form of liability to single-incident cases. See Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1535; Hammond v. County of Madera, 859 F.2d 797, 803 (9th Cir.1988).7
“[D]eliberate indifference is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Brown, 520 U.S. at 410, 117 S.Ct. 1382 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Jensen v. City of Oxnard, 145 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir.) (stating the same principle), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1016, 119 S.Ct. 540, 142 L.Ed.2d 449 (1998). There is no evidence that Kimura knew anything of Iopa's actions before the criminal case against Christie was dismissed.
In this action, holding the municipality liable for Kimura's general policy of delegating discretion to deputy prosecutors would be tantamount to adopting respondeat superior liability. That result is impermissible. See, e.g., Monell, 436 U.S. at 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018 (“[A] municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.”). The district court correctly held that, as a matter of law, Christie cannot demonstrate deliberate indifference.
1. Plaintiffs later amended their complaint to also allege that Defendants interfered with their right to engage in commerce.
2. When Plaintiffs were indicted, Kimura had not yet been elected County Prosecutor; he was serving as First Deputy Prosecutor (second in command).
3. In the prior appeal in this case, this court stated:It is unclear who other than the county prosecutor can make policy for the county in initiating prosecutions. As noted above, the county prosecutor's authority stems from the attorney general. If the attorney general does not intrude into county prosecutions, Christie and Anderson may be entitled to judgment as a matter of law that Iopa and Kimura were acting as policymakers. Because no such motion was made before the district court, however, we decline to reach that issue at this time.Christie v. Iopa, 121 F.3d 714, 1997 WL 429413 (9th Cir.1997) (unpublished table decision) (emphasis added); see 9th Cir. R. 36-3 (allowing the citation to an unpublished disposition when relevant as law of the case). As is apparent, the court declined to decide whether Iopa had final policymaking authority. The mere suggestion that Iopa might possess that authority does not bind us now. See Ruff v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 915, 918 (9th Cir.1990) (“This panel is not bound by dicta from prior cases ․”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); Export Group v. Reef Indus., Inc., 54 F.3d 1466, 1471-73 (9th Cir.1995) (stating the same principle).
4. Plaintiffs assert that this court in Fazio v. City and County of San Francisco, 125 F.3d 1328 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1074, 118 S.Ct. 1517, 140 L.Ed.2d 670 (1998), held that deputy prosecutors have policymaking authority under San Francisco's charter. However, Fazio did not purport to interpret Hawaii law. Moreover, Plaintiffs misunderstand Fazio.This court did hold that deputy prosecutors in San Francisco are policymakers for the purpose of political patronage liability. See id. at 1333. However, the court stated that “policymaker” has a different meaning in that context:[T]he term policymaker as used in this context does not mean “one who makes policy.” Rather, the term refers to a position in which political considerations are “appropriate requirement[s] for the effective performance of the public office involved.”Id. (emphasis added) (citation omitted) (alteration in original).
5. In his motion for reconsideration, Christie produced, for the first time, newspaper articles that suggested that Kimura knew of Iopa's alleged constitutional violations. However, we do not consider evidence or arguments presented for the first time in a motion for reconsideration. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) (party opposing summary judgment may serve opposing affidavits “prior to the day of hearing”); Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 902, 912 (9th Cir.1995) (“A party does not properly preserve an issue for appeal by raising it for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.”); Bally Export Corp. v. Balicar, Ltd., 804 F.2d 398, 404 (7th Cir.1986) (“Although the defendants attempted to raise the argument in their motion for reconsideration, a motion for reconsideration is an improper vehicle to introduce evidence previously available or to tender new legal theories.”).
6. The Supreme Court in Brown assumed without deciding that single-incident liability applied to the policy at issue there. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 412, 117 S.Ct. 1382.
7. In Fuller and Hammond, this court suggested that the appropriate standard for liability was either gross negligence or reckless indifference. However, after those decisions, this court has made clear that a plaintiff must prove deliberate indifference. See L.W. v. Grubbs, 92 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir.1996) (“We conclude that ․ the plaintiff must show that the state official participated in creating a dangerous condition, and acted with deliberate indifference to the known or obvious danger in subjecting the plaintiff to it.”).