Court Opinion

ID: 9556795
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 18:00:53.609943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:01:03.740713
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20311          Document: 00516863090             Page: 1       Date Filed: 08/18/2023

               United States Court of Appeals
                    for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                            Fifth Circuit

                                       ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                    August 18, 2023
                                         No. 22-20311                                Lyle W. Cayce
                                       ____________                                       Clerk

   Laura Covington,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                              versus

   City of Madisonville, Texas,

                                                 Defendant—Appellee.
                       ______________________________

                       Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Southern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:13-CV-3300
                       ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Engelhardt, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
             Plaintiff-Appellant Laura Covington (“Laura”) appeals the district
   court’s summary judgment dismissal of her municipal liability claims, as-
   serted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Defendant-Appellee City of
   Madisonville. As detailed in our opinion in her previous appeal, 1 Laura seeks
   to hold the City liable for monetary damages and other relief relating to her
             _____________________
   *
       This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
   1
    See Covington v. City of Madisonville, Texas, No. 18-20723, 812 F. App’x 219, 222 (5th Cir.
   May 15, 2020).
Case: 22-20311      Document: 00516863090           Page: 2     Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                     No. 22-20311

   unlawful arrest, which occurred after her ex-husband, Sergeant Jeffrey Cov-
   ington of the Madisonville Police Department (“Jeffrey”), had a “confiden-
   tial informant” plant methamphetamine in her vehicle in order to bring about
   her arrest, prosecution, and loss of child custody. On remand, the district
   court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Laura’s
   claims based on its determination that the City’s Chief of Police lacks the
   “final policymaking authority” required for municipal liability under 42
   U.S.C. § 1983. Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, applica-
   ble law, and relevant portions of the record in this matter, we AFFIRM.
          “As with other questions of state law relevant to the application of
   federal law, the identification of those officials whose decisions represent the
   official policy of the local governmental unit is itself a legal question to be
   resolved by the trial judge before the case is submitted to the jury.” Jett v.
   Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989); see also Gros v. City of Grand
   Prairie, 181 F.3d 613, 617 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[W]hether an official has been
   delegated final policymaking authority is a question of law for the judge, not
   [one] of fact for the jury.”). Thus, the trial judge must “review[] the relevant
   legal materials, including state and local positive law, as well as custom or
   usage having the force of law,” to “identify those officials or governmental
   bodies who speak with final policymaking authority . . . concerning the action
   alleged to have caused the particular constitutional or statutory violation at
   issue.” Jett, 491 U.S. at 737 (internal citations and quotations omitted).
           “A municipality can be held liable only when it delegates
   policymaking authority, not when it delegates decisionmaking authority.”
   Longoria Next Friend of M.L. v. San Benito Indep. Consol. Sch. Dist., 942 F.3d
   258, 271 (5th Cir. 2019). “The fact that an official’s decisions are final is
   insufficient to demonstrate policymaker status.” Zarnow v. City of Wichita
   Falls, Tex., 614 F.3d 161, 167 (5th Cir. 2010) (emphasis added). Thus,
   “discretion to exercise a particular function does not necessarily entail final

                                           2
Case: 22-20311      Document: 00516863090           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                     No. 22-20311

   policymaking authority over that function.” Bolton v. City of Dallas, Tex., 541
   F.3d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 2008).
          Here, though acknowledging that both sides can point to evidence
   favorable to their positions, the district court found:
          [O]n balance, while Chiefs [of Police] Clendennen and May
          possessed some level of discretionary or decision-making
          authority, the summary judgment evidence fails to establish
          that the City Council expressly or impliedly delegated them
          policymaking authority. While the evidence cited by [Laura]
          suggests that the police chiefs at times claimed some level of
          authority to follow city policy or not, the fact that they did not
          follow the policies (or created their own unwritten policies)
          cannot serve as evidence of “policymaking” on behalf of the
          city. On the contrary, the minutes of the City Council strongly
          demonstrate that the Chiefs lacked final policymaking
          authority.
   The district court also noted that that “the police chief’s subordinate role
   and lack of final policymaking authority is corroborated by Chief May’s dec-
   laration,” which “suggests that the police chief was, at most, a “deci-
   sionmaker.”
          Ultimately, the district court concluded:
          The police chief’s orders may set the tone and direct the day-
          to-day police activities, but he is not an official policymaker for
          the City. Absent final policymaking authority, neither the po-
          lice chiefs’ alleged decision not to supervise Jeffrey nor their
          alleged ratification of Jeffrey’s unlawful conduct can qualify as
          official city policy. [Laura’s] § 1983 municipal liability claims
          therefore fail as a matter of law.
          As we previously have acknowledged, “there’s a fine distinction
   between a policymaker and a decisionmaker.” Zarnow, 614 F.3d at 167. At
   the same time, “the elements of the Monell test exist to prevent a collapse of

                                          3
Case: 22-20311       Document: 00516863090           Page: 4     Date Filed: 08/18/2023

                                      No. 22-20311

   the municipal liability inquiry into a respondeat superior analysis. Id. (citing Bd.
   of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 415 (1997)).
   On the instant record, we find no error in the district court’s evidentiary
   assessment. Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

                                            4