Opinion ID: 2982356
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Liability of City of Plymouth

Text: Regets claims that the City of Plymouth should be liable for the officers’ actions, because the City failed to train the officers adequately. “Under § 1983, a municipality can only be held liable if the plaintiff demonstrates that the injury suffered was a direct result of the city’s official policy or custom.” Slusher v. Carson, 540 F.3d 449, 456–57 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694–95 (1978)). “To succeed on a failure to train or supervise claim, the plaintiff must prove the following: (1) the training or supervision was inadequate for the tasks performed; (2) the inadequacy was the result of the municipality’s deliberate indifference; and (3) the inadequacy was closely related to or actually caused the injury.” Ellis ex rel. Pendergrass v. Cleveland Mun. Sch. Dist., 455 F.3d 690, 700 (6th Cir. 2006). “‘[D]eliberate indifference’ is a stringent standard of fault, requiring proof that a - 22 - Case No. 13-1574, Regets v. City of Plymouth municipal actor disregarded a known or obvious consequence of his action.” Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 410 (1997). “This Court has identified two situations justifying a conclusion of deliberate indifference in claims of failure to train or supervise.” Ellis, 455 F.3d at 700. The first is the “failure to provide adequate training in light of foreseeable consequences that could result from a lack of instruction.” Id. at 701 (internal quotations and citation omitted). The second type of “deliberate indifference is where the city fails to act in response to repeated complaints of constitutional violations by its officers.” Id. at 701 (internal quotations and citation omitted). To establish deliberate indifference, a plaintiff must show “prior instances of unconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the [municipality] has ignored a history of abuse and was clearly on notice that the training in this particular area was deficient and likely to cause injury.” Marcilis v. Twp. of Redford, 693 F.3d 589, 605 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Regets cannot establish municipal liability as she has “not shown that the [City] knew of prior unconstitutional actions by its officers and failed to respond.” Fisher v. Harden, 398 F.3d 837, 849 (6th Cir. 2005). The record does not disclose any history of similar incidents or any basis from which a fact finder could conclude that the City had notice that officer training regarding probable cause for searches and arrests was deficient. Miller v. Calhoun Cnty., 408 F.3d 803, 816 (6th Cir. 2005). Rather, the record shows that the policy of the City of Plymouth police department was that an arrest could only be based on probable cause or warrant.