Opinion ID: 4459342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Monell Violation

Text: Barnes also alleges the City of Centralia, through its police department, should be liable as a result of Peebles’s actions. Because a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a theory of respondeat superior, Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, a plaintiﬀ must identify a municipal “custom, policy or practice that eﬀectively caused or condoned the alleged constitutional violations.” Matthews v. City of E. St. Louis, 675 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2012). In the district court, Barnes based her Monell claim on the city’s alleged failure to discipline oﬃcers who unlawfully seize others and purportedly cover up unlawful seizures. The district court granted defendants summary judgment on that claim, concluding Barnes had failed to oﬀer admissible evidence in support of her assertions. On appeal, Barnes alters her theory, arguing the city failed to train and supervise its oﬃcers, which caused her alleged constitutional violation. Barnes’s new theory of liability under Monell meets the same fate as her previous one. First, by failing to argue this theory in the district court, she has waived it on appeal. See Economy Folding Box Corp. v. Anchor Frozen Foods Corp., 515 F.3d 718, 720 (7th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). “[T]o reverse the district court on grounds not presented to it would undermine the essential function of the district court.” Id. (quoting Boyers v. Texaco Ref. & Mktg., Inc., 848 F.2d 809, 812 (7th Cir. 1988)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Second, Barnes has not identified any evidence that supports her new theory of liability. While Barnes has cited cases 10 No. 19-1377 in the failure to train and failure to supervise contexts, she has neither referenced nor even alluded to any evidence to support Monell liability based on her new theory. Monell claims require evidence, but Barnes has offered none. See Jenkins v. Bartlett, 487 F.3d 482, 491–93 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting municipality may not be held liable under Monell for failure to adequately train or supervise officers when plaintiff fails to demonstrate any constitutional violation by municipal employee). Barnes’s sole contention on this topic is that Centralia failed to train its officers in handling profanity and that her profanity was the cause of her arrest. But Barnes submits no evidence in support of this claim, much less evidence that a failure to train or supervise was “the moving force” behind Peebles reporting her or James arresting her. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 694 (referencing “official policy as the moving force of the constitutional violation”). So Barnes’s Monell claim against Centralia fails.