Opinion ID: 556408
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Problem of Causal Proof

Text: 49 Defendants further claim that plaintiffs did not establish sufficient evidence of a causal connection between the County's negligent disciplinary policies in handling cases of police and prosecutorial misconduct and the conduct of individual defendants in this case and thereby failed to fulfill the Monell standard for a finding of municipal liability. They argue that under Monell there must be affirmative evidence of a causal connection between the alleged municipal policy and the conduct of the individual policemen and that the record at trial is devoid of such evidence. Defendants also claim that the judge's charge on this aspect of the case was inadequate. 50 These arguments are without merit. Plaintiffs were not obliged to produce particular evidence that defendants had specific knowledge of a declared policy of the County and acted on this knowledge in promoting the malicious prosecution of plaintiffs. This is only one method--and not the exclusive one--of establishing the necessary link between municipal practice and individual behavior. The critical question here is whether there is sufficient evidence in the record of municipal policy, custom or practice, so that a jury could reasonably infer that the individual conduct in this case was causally connected to the policy. 5 See Batista v. Rodriquez, 702 F.2d 393, 398 (2d Cir.1983), which states that a causal connection between the City's policy of inaction and the arrests and assault might permissibly be implied from conduct such as inadequate training and supervision or prior instances of unusual brutality indicating deliberate indifference or gross negligence on the part of the municipal officials in charge. Cf. Fiacco v. City of Rensselaer, N.Y., 783 F.2d 319, 327 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 922, 107 S.Ct. 1384, 94 L.Ed.2d 698 (1987). As Judge Weinstein properly instructed the jury, the issue is whether there was evidence that the action of the employee which deprived [the defendant] of his federal right was the result of an official policy of the municipality or governmental custom. There can be little doubt on the record here that there was sufficient evidence to support such an inference. The judge noted in his opinion: 51 The appropriate inquiry in this Monell-type claim focuses on the actual or constructive knowledge of the municipality as well as upon the implied knowledge and reliance of municipal employees on that practice. Not only does the SIC report tend to establish the existence of a municipal policy or practice, but it also supports plaintiffs' allegation that the police and the District Attorney's Office were likely ... to consistently ignore evidence of misconduct on the part of the defendant officers and to sanction and cover up any wrongdoing connected with the Gentile and Rydstrom investigation. 52 129 F.R.D. at 446. We reject defendants' claim that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a Monell claim against the County.