Opinion ID: 795169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Liability of the East Penn School District

Text: 67 Sanford advances a claim of municipal liability against the East Penn School District. She argues that the School District is liable for damages because Stiles' actions were taken pursuant to school policy. For example, Sanford alleges that the District's counselors are not adequately prepared to make an initial assessment of a student's suicide risk. 16 (Appellant's Br. at 37.) The District Court dismissed the municipal liability claim on summary judgment. 68 There is no respondeat superior theory of municipal liability, so a city may not be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for the actions of its agents. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Rather, a municipality may be held liable only if its policy or custom is the moving force behind a constitutional violation. See Brown, 520 U.S. at 400, 117 S.Ct. 1382; see also Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 122, 112 S.Ct. 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992) (stating that a municipality is only liable when the municipality itself is the wrongdoer). In Brown v. Pennsylvania Department of Health Emergency Medical Services Training Institute, 318 F.3d at 482, we held that it is possible for a municipality to be held independently liable for a substantive due process violation even when none of its individual employees is liable. However, we emphasized that in order for municipal liability to exist, there must still be a violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Id. (citing Collins, 503 U.S. at 122, 112 S.Ct. 1061). Here, there was none. 69 We assume arguendo that the School District's Suicide Referral Process constitutes a policy or custom of the District. 17 Still, in order to prove that a violation occurred, Sanford must show a direct causal link between the policy and a constitutional violation. Id. Additionally, to meet the standard of fault, Sanford must show that the municipality acted with deliberate indifference toward the rights of its students. Id. at 479 ([T]he [Supreme] Court has instructed that `deliberate indifference' is the necessary standard in order to establish § 1983 liability of a municipality.) (citation omitted); see also Carswell v. Borough of Homestead, 381 F.3d 235, 245 (3d Cir.2004); Berg, 219 F.3d at 276. 70 In our view, Sanford has not made either showing. She has failed to cite any evidence that Michael's reasons for taking his own life were related to Stiles' intervention, which was undertaken in accordance with school policy. Therefore, no policy can be said to have caused Michael's death. Sanford has also failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the School District disregarded a known or obvious consequence of [its] action. Brown, 520 U.S. at 410, 117 S.Ct. 1382. For example, as the District Court noted, there is no evidence of a pattern of student suicides in the district. Nor is there evidence that the policy had failed in the past. Hence, we find no reason to overturn the District Court's judgment with respect to Sanford's claim of municipal liability.