Opinion ID: 181046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Santiago's Claim Against Warminster

Text: We now turn to the dismissal of Santiago's claim against Warminster. The District Court dismissed that claim because Santiago had failed to allege that Chief Murphy was a final policymaker, which, under Monell, was necessary to the survival of her claim against the Township. Santiago offers two arguments for why the dismissal was improper. First, she argues that, while she may not have used the words final policymaker, the factual averments of the complaint are more than sufficient to show that Chief Murphy was the `final policymaker' with respect to the tactical decisions made here. (Appellant's Opening Brief at 23.) Second, she argues that the District Court applied the wrong standardconsidering whether Chief Murphy was a final policymaker as a factual question instead of a legal one, as required under Supreme Court precedent. Not only are those arguments inconsistent, they miss the point. The dispositive point is that, whether or not Chief Murphy is a final policymaker, Santiago has failed to plead facts showing that his plan caused her injury. Under Monell, for municipal liability to attach, any injury must be inflicted by execution of a government's policy or custom. 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. Drawing all factual inferences in favor of Santiago, as is required at this juncture, we nevertheless cannot conclude that the Third Amended Complaint alleges municipal liability. The complaint does not allege that Chief Murphy had policymaking authority, [11] nor does it allege what action he took that could fairly be said to be policy. The allegation that Chief Murphy ordered a plan to execute arrest warrants does not imply the existence of an official policy in violation of Santiago's constitutional rights. See McTernan v. City of York, 564 F.3d 636, 658 (3d Cir.2009) (a claimant must identify a custom or policy, and specify what exactly that custom or policy was); see also McGreal v. Ostrov, 368 F.3d 657, 685 (7th Cir.2004) ([T]he plaintiff must first allege that a defendant is a final policymaker. Only then can a court proceed to the next question of whether the single act or single decision of that defendant constituted municipal policy.) More to the point, though, we have already held that Santiago's pleadings fail to plausibly allege that Chief Murphy directed others to violate her rights. Thus, even if Chief Murphy were a final policy maker and his plan were deemed to be official Warminster policy, Santiago has failed to properly plead that the plan was the source of her injury. Therefore, she has not shown that her injury was inflicted by execution of [Warminster's] policy or custom, Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, and she has no claim against the Township.