Opinion ID: 737240
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: City of Sacramento:

Text: 14 Appellants made two claims against the City of Sacramento. First, that it had a policy or a custom of not inquiring into the validity of arrests made by citizens. Second, that it failed to adequately select, train, and supervise Sgt. Dowden, who held appellant Reali in custody after her arrest. Summary judgment was proper as to both claims. Appellants alleged no facts to support the claim that the City has either a policy or custom of not inquiring into the validity of arrests made by citizens. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. A policy may be shown where--and only where--a deliberate choice to follow a course of action is made [by policymakers] from among various alternatives. Meehan v. County of Los Angeles, 856 F.2d 102, 107 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 483-84 (1986)). It is the plaintiff's burden to prove official policy by more than bald allegation. Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 326 (1981). She must show that official policy is the moving force of the constitutional violation in order to establish liability. Monell, 436 U.S. at 694. At the very least there must be an affirmative link between the policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged. Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808, 823 (1985). The appellants have shown neither a policy or consequences from it that would establish municipal liability here. 15 The district court properly dismissed appellants' claims against the City for failure to adequately select, train, and supervise Sgt. Dowden. When a person sues under § 1983 for an allegedly unconstitutional arrest, the city cannot be held liable absent a constitutional violation by the arresting officer. Grossman, 33 F.3d at 1203 (quoting City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (1986)). The specific constitutional violation alleged here is that Sgt. Dowden used excessive force against appellant Reali in removing her from the Cathedral and while she was in his custody. However, the jury's finding that the force Dowden used was reasonable eliminates appellants' constitutional claim against the City, because the appellant suffered no constitutional injury. Summary judgment was properly granted.