Opinion ID: 489887
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Allegations Against the District of

Text: Columbia 73 The District Court, in dismissing Haynesworth's claim against the District of Columbia, stated that he had failed to show that the activities complained of had been authorized by policymaking officials. 233 The court adverted to the existence of the policy directive prohibiting retaliatory prosecution, as well as to the ultimate dismissal of the charges against Haynesworth by supervisory officials, in an effort to support its conclusion that the practice of retaliatory prosecution was unauthorized. 234 While we agree that those factors were relevant in determining whether municipal liability should attach, we deem them insufficient to defeat the claim against the District at the outset of this litigation. 74 Viewed in the light most favorable to Haynesworth, 235 we believe that his complaint presented sufficient information to proceed against the District for the retaliatory prosecution asserted. Haynesworth alleged that Miller was responsible for establishment and implementation of policies for the Law Enforcement Section of the Corporation Counsel's Office. 236 The complaint also charged that Miller pursued a policy of retaliatory prosecution, 237 as did other District attorneys acting under his direction. 238 These allegations, if proven, could supply an adequate foundation for attribution of Miller's conduct to the District. 75 At any trial of this issue, the District may attempt to show that Miller's decisions were routinely monitored by his superiors, and that showing could serve to insulate the municipality from liability. Evidence that the charges against Haynesworth were dropped when he lodged an administrative complaint would be relevant in this regard, but the bare allegation of that fact does not preclude municipal liability for the prosecution. Nor does the mere existence of a policy directive condemning retaliatory prosecutions defeat Haynesworth's claim against the District. If the District can establish that the directive was vigorously enforced, it may be that Miller acted without municipal authority. Absent such a showing, if Haynesworth can establish that the Corporation Council's office actually adhered to a policy of retaliatory prosecution, the directive will be rendered meaningless. 239 76 As noted, the question of municipal responsibility for unconstitutional official actions is one of fact so long as the plaintiff sets forth a plausible basis for the assertion of liability. 240 We find that Haynesworth's complaint sets forth adequate ground for attributing the challenged conduct to the District, and that he is entitled to an opportunity to prove the District's legal responsibility for harm caused by the retaliatory prosecution. 241