Court Opinion

ID: 9401094
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 00:01:17.773931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.581017
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10269     Document: 00516781836         Page: 1    Date Filed: 06/09/2023

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

                                                                       FILED
                                                                    June 9, 2023
                                  No. 22-10269                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                       Clerk

   Odell Edwards, individually and as representative of The Estate of
   Jordan Edwards, Deceased,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                      versus

   The City of Balch Springs, Texas,

                                                           Defendant—Appellee.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                           USDC No. 3:17-CV-1208

   Before Elrod, Haynes, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Don R. Willett, Circuit Judge:
         The City of Balch Springs Police Department hired an officer who a
   jury later convicted of murdering a teenage boy while on duty. Edwards (the
   boy’s father) sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court
   granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the
   department’s use-of-force policy was constitutional, and also that Edwards’s
   training, supervisory, and disciplinary theories of liability lacked factual
   support. We follow a different line of reasoning in some respects, but we
Case: 22-10269      Document: 00516781836            Page: 2   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                      No. 22-10269

   agree that the district court reached the result that our precedent requires,
   and we therefore AFFIRM.
                                           I
          Jordan Edwards attended a house party in Balch Springs, Texas on the
   evening of April 29, 2017. Jordan’s two brothers and two friends also
   attended, as did several other teenagers. Officers Roy Oliver and Tyler Gross
   of the Balch Springs Police Department responded to the house after a 9-1-1
   call reported underage drinking. At that point the party dissolved, and the
   five boys returned to their car.
          While Officers Oliver and Gross were in the house, gunfire erupted
   across the street. The officers heard the shots and ran outside toward the
   sound. The boys, too, heard the shots from their car. Vidal Allen, one of
   Jordan’s brothers, was behind the wheel. He tried to drive away from the
   shots, but a vehicle was blocking the road. So he reversed the car—moving
   temporarily toward the shots, but ultimately aiming for and moving toward an
   intersection that offered an alternate route to escape the area. Gross yelled
   for the car to stop, but Vidal continued in reverse, reached the intersection,
   put the car in drive, and then drove forward and away from the shots.
          Oliver recounts that the car then accelerated “at/by” the officers and
   that Gross was “extremely close” to the boys’ car. Gross struck and
   shattered the car’s rear passenger window, and less than half a second later,
   Oliver fired his first of five shots. One of those bullets struck Jordan in the
   head, killing him. Edwards contends that there was no immediate risk of harm
   to anyone when Oliver opened fire. He also asserts that Oliver shot at the
   car’s rear—both while the car was driving away from the officers and after it
   had passed them.

                                           2
Case: 22-10269          Document: 00516781836              Page: 3        Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                           No. 22-10269

          Three days later, the City fired Oliver. A Texas jury found Oliver
   guilty of murder, and the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed that conviction. 1
   The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas granted Oliver’s petition for
   discretionary review but later dismissed it as improvidently granted. 2 Oliver
   was sentenced to fifteen years in prison.
          Meanwhile, Edwards (who is Jordan’s father) filed a civil suit against
   both Oliver and the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Oliver moved for summary
   judgment based on qualified immunity, but the district court denied that
   motion, and this court affirmed.3 Likewise, the City moved to dismiss,
   arguing that Edwards had failed to state a municipal-liability claim. The
   district court also denied that motion. At various times the case featured
   additional plaintiffs, but those individuals have since settled their claims.
   Other theories of relief (beyond § 1983) were presented below but are not
   relevant to this appeal.
          After discovery closed, the City moved for summary judgment, urging
   that Edwards had failed to present evidence sufficient to establish the
   necessary elements of a § 1983 claim for municipal liability. The magistrate
   judge entered findings and conclusions recommending that the district court
   grant the City’s motion because “the City’s use-of-deadly-force policy . . . is
   constitutional” and “was not the moving force of Oliver’s conduct,” and
   because “Edwards has not raised a fact question as to whether the City was
   deliberately indifferent with respect to his failure-to-supervise or -discipline
   claim.” The district court accepted the magistrate’s findings, conclusions,

          1
            Oliver v. State, No. 05-18-01057-CR, 2020 WL 4581644, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas
   Aug. 10, 2020, pet. dism’d).
          2
              Oliver v. State, No. PD-0845-20, 2022 WL 2240200, at *1 (Tex. June 22, 2022).
          3
              See Edwards v. Oliver, 31 F.4th 925, 927 (5th Cir. 2022).

                                                 3
Case: 22-10269           Document: 00516781836              Page: 4       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                            No. 22-10269

   and recommendation, and it granted the City’s motion. Edwards timely
   appealed.
                                                  II
           This district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. That court
   granted and certified as final a partial summary judgment dismissing all of
   Edwards’s claims against the City (even though some of Edwards’s civil
   claims are still pending against Oliver). We have appellate jurisdiction under
   28 U.S.C. § 1291.4 We “review summary judgments de novo, applying the
   same standards as the district court.”5 Summary judgment is proper when
   “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
   to judgment as a matter of law.”6
                                                 III
           A plaintiff may sue a municipality for a violation of federal rights that
   occurs “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
   usage.”7 To succeed, the plaintiff must identify a federal right that was
   violated “pursuant to an official municipal policy.” 8 This claim, also known
   as a Monell claim, requires “(1) an official policy (2) promulgated by the
   municipal policymaker (3) [that] was the moving force behind the violation
   of a constitutional right.”9 To establish the third element, the plaintiff must

           4
            See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“[W]hen multiple parties are involved, the court
   may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, . . . parties[.]”).
           5
             Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 37 F.4th 1078, 1083
   (5th Cir. 2022).
           6
               Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
           7
               42 U.S.C. § 1983.
           8
              Liggins v. Duncanville, 52 F.4th 953, 955 (5th Cir. 2022) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t
   of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978)).
           9
               Peterson v. City of Fort Worth, 588 F.3d 838, 847 (5th Cir. 2009).

                                                   4
Case: 22-10269            Document: 00516781836          Page: 5       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                          No. 22-10269

   show either that “‘the policy itself was unconstitutional’” or that “‘[the
   policy] was adopted with deliberate indifference to the known or obvious
   fact’ that a specific constitutional violation would follow.”10 A plaintiff who
   alleges that a policy was one of failure-to-train must show that the failure
   “‘constituted deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional
   rights.’”11
           Edwards argues that the City’s use-of-force policy is facially
   unconstitutional as a matter of law. He also argues that factual questions
   remain regarding an alleged policy under which the City failed to train,
   supervise, or discipline its officers. We disagree on both fronts.
                                               A
           If an official policy “‘itself violates federal law, or directs an employee
   to do so,’”12 then the policy is facially unconstitutional, and “it necessarily
   follows . . . that a constitutional violation will most likely occur.” 13 When that
   happens, the facially unconstitutional policy’s mere existence satisfies the
   moving-force requirement that is Monell’s third element.14 On the other
   hand, a “facially innocuous policy will support liability” only if “it was
   promulgated with deliberate indifference to the known or obvious

           10
              Liggins, 52 F.4th at 955 (quoting Webb v. Town of Saint Joseph, 925 F.3d 209, 219
   (5th Cir. 2019)).
           11
             Hutcheson v. Dallas Cnty., 994 F.3d 477, 482 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting Pena v. City
   of Rio Grande City, 879 F.3d 613, 623 (5th Cir. 2018)); see Shumpert v. City of Tupelo, 905
   F.3d 310, 317 (5th Cir. 2018) (citing City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 390 (1989)).
           12
             Doe v. United States, 831 F.3d 309, 318 (5th Cir. 2016) (emphasis omitted)
   (quoting Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404–05 (1997)).
           13
             Burge v. St. Tammany Par., 336 F.3d 363, 370 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing Piotrowski v.
   City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 579 (5th Cir. 2001)).
           14
                See id.

                                                5
Case: 22-10269           Document: 00516781836               Page: 6         Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                             No. 22-10269

   consequences that constitutional violations would result.” 15 However, we
   know of no cases from this circuit explaining how to determine whether a
   formal, written policy “itself violates federal law” 16 such that it is
   “unconstitutional on its face” rather than “facially innocuous” under
   Monell’s moving-force element.17 Indeed, a district court recently remarked
   that it was not “aware” of a “guide for analyzing a city’s written policy” or
   of any “caselaw that provides a roadmap for such analysis.”18
           The Supreme Court has held that “recovery from a municipality is
   limited to acts that are, properly speaking, acts of the municipality—that is,
   acts which the municipality has officially sanctioned or ordered.”19 And that
   Court has indicated that a policy is not facially unconstitutional just because
   it commits some decisions to an officer’s discretion, for “[i]f the mere
   exercise of discretion . . . could give rise to a constitutional violation, the
   result would be indistinguishable from respondeat superior liability.”20
           Following that precedent, some of our sister circuits have held that a
   written policy cannot be facially unconstitutional solely due to instructions
   that it leaves out. For example, the Eighth Circuit has held that a policy that

           15
              Balle v. Nueces Cnty., 952 F.3d 552, 558 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
           16
                Doe, 831 F.3d at 318 (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
           17
                Burge, 336 F.3d at 370.
           18
             Roundtree v. City of San Antonio, No. SA-18-CV-01117-JKP-ESC, 2022 WL
   903260, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2022).
           19
              Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480 (1986) (emphasis added)
   (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 483 (plurality opinion) (“We hold that
   municipal liability under § 1983 attaches where—and only where—a deliberate choice to
   follow a course of action is made from among various alternatives by the official or officials
   responsible for establishing final policy with respect to the subject matter in question.”).
           20
                City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 126 (1988).

                                                   6
Case: 22-10269           Document: 00516781836               Page: 7       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                             No. 22-10269

   “fails to give detailed guidance that might have averted a constitutional
   violation by an employee” is not thereby unconstitutional.21 Likewise, the
   Ninth Circuit has held that a policy’s “failure to implement procedural
   safeguards to prevent constitutional violations” is an “omission” and
   therefore cognizable only under the deliberate-indifference standard.22 And
   the Eleventh Circuit has held that “the deliberate indifference standard
   applies to section 1983 claims basing liability on a municipality’s actions in
   failing to prevent a deprivation of federal rights.” 23
           We agree. An official, written policy is “itself” unconstitutional only
   if it affirmatively allows or compels unconstitutional conduct. 24 But where
   such an official, written policy merely commits some decisions to an
   individual officer’s on-the-scene discretion, or gives some detailed
   instructions while omitting others, then that policy satisfies Monell’s moving-
   force element only if those features stem from the policymaker’s deliberate
   indifference.
           Edwards argues that the City’s policy is facially unconstitutional
   because it contains “no immediacy requirement necessary to justify an
   officer’s use of deadly force” and because it calls “for an officer to use the

           21
             Szabla v. City of Brooklyn Park, 486 F.3d 385, 392 (8th Cir. 2007); see also Moyle
   v. Anderson, 571 F.3d 814, 818 (8th Cir. 2009) (“A policy which does not ‘affirmatively
   sanction’ unconstitutional action, and which instead relies on the discretion of the
   municipality’s employees, is not an unconstitutional policy.” (emphasis added) (quoting
   Seymour v. City of Des Moines, 519 F.3d 790, 800 (8th Cir. 2008))).
           22
                Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1143 (9th Cir. 2012).
           23
              Davis v. DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 233 F.3d 1367, 1376 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing
   Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274, 291 (1998)).
           24
                Doe, 831 F.3d at 318 (emphasis omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                   7
Case: 22-10269       Document: 00516781836            Page: 8      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                       No. 22-10269

   officer’s own subjective beliefs in determining whether deadly force was
   justified.” Neither argument succeeds.
                                             1
          When a suspect “‘poses no immediate threat to the officer . . . , the
   harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of
   deadly force to do so.’”25 Edwards says that this language reflects a universal
   “immediacy” requirement that applies to any exercise of deadly force. From
   that initial premise, he argues that the City’s use-of-force policy
   unconstitutionally “permits officers to use deadly force when no immediate
   threat of harm actually exists.”
          Edwards’s first premise is undoubtedly correct, but his argument fails
   on the second. The City’s use-of-force policy provides (emphases added):
          Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force . . .
          [t]o protect the officer or others from what is reasonably
          believed to be a threat of death or serious bodily injury.
          [Except that] . . . .
          2. Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle in an
             attempt to disable the vehicle.
          3. . . . [O]fficers threatened by an oncoming vehicle should
             attempt to move out of its path, if possible, instead of
             discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants. However,
             if an officer reasonably believes that a person is immediately
             threatening the officer or another person with deadly force
             by means of a vehicle, an officer may use deadly force
             against the driver of the vehicle.

          25
              Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444, 453 (5th Cir. 2019) (emphasis added) (quoting
   Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 11 (1985)).

                                             8
Case: 22-10269          Document: 00516781836                Page: 9   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                              No. 22-10269

   The district court held that both exceptions prohibit the shots that Oliver
   fired. Under this reasoning, the City is off the hook—either because the
   second exception says that “[f]irearms shall not be discharged at a moving
   vehicle,” or because the third exception includes an immediacy requirement.
          Edwards argues that the district court invoked these exceptions only
   after it improperly resolved questions of fact. As for the second exception,
   Edwards argues that there is a fact question because “Oliver’s justification
   for shooting at the vehicle . . . was not to disable the vehicle . . . , but because
   he believed that a shot had been fired from the vehicle.” Edwards also says
   that there is a fact issue as to the third exception because the car was not
   “oncoming” but rather was “headed away from the officers” when Oliver
   opened fire. Therefore (according to Edwards), because the second and third
   exceptions do not apply, the policy’s “overriding ‘use of deadly force’
   authorization” governs the shooting. But because the general authorization
   “is not at all constrained by immediacy,” the policy is “unconstitutional on
   its face.” So the argument goes.
          Edwards’s argument errs, but not necessarily for the reasons that the
   district court gave. Even if the Constitution always requires immediacy, and
   even if the policy’s second and third exceptions do not apply, the policy’s
   general use-of-deadly-force authorization does not affirmatively allow or
   compel officers to use deadly force even when immediacy is lacking. Rather,
   the general authorization is silent about immediacy. That silence permissibly
   commits judgments about immediacy to each officer’s own “discretion.” 26
          Conceptually, too, Edwards’s argument falters. For example, his
   complaint alleges that “the [City’s] use-of-force policy is unconstitutional
   because it authorizes officers to use deadly force . . . without instructing [them]

          26
               Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 126.

                                                   9
Case: 22-10269          Document: 00516781836                Page: 10      Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                              No. 22-10269

   that the threat must be immediate.” If omissions such as these render a policy
   facially unconstitutional, then it is hard to see what room is left for failure-to-
   train claims that must satisfy the “deliberate indifference” standard. 27 On
   the contrary, a written policy is not facially unconstitutional just because it
   leaves out “detailed guidance that might have averted a constitutional
   violation.”28 If it were otherwise, a use-of-force policy would be facially
   constitutional only if it recited every jot and tittle of the applicable caselaw.
   Surmounting that logistical hurdle would produce a behemoth free of any
   practical use—less a policy than a treatise. Edwards’s “immediacy”
   argument is therefore no basis for reversal.
                                                   2
           Edwards’s “subjectivity” argument fares no better. The Fourth
   Amendment prohibits “objectively unreasonable” force. 29 An “officer’s
   reasonableness in using force . . . is analyzed under an objective standard ‘in
   light of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer, without regard to
   his or her underlying intent or motivation.’”30 Permissible factors under this
   standard include “the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect
   poses a threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect
   is actively resisting arrest.”31 “[T]he ‘threat-of-harm factor typically
   predominates the analysis when deadly force has been deployed.’” 32

           27
                See Balle, 952 F.3d at 558.
           28
                Szabla, 486 F.3d at 392.
           29
                Hutcheson, 994 F.3d at 480; U.S. Const. amend. IV.
           30
              Mason v. Lafayette Par., 806 F.3d 268, 275 (5th Cir. 2015) (emphasis added)
   (alterations accepted) (quoting Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386,397 (1989)).
           31
             Crane v. City of Arlington, 50 F.4th 453, 463 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Graham, 490
   U.S. at 396).
           32
                Id. at 463 (quoting Harmon v. City of Arlington, 16 F.4th 1159, 1163).

                                                  10
Case: 22-10269         Document: 00516781836             Page: 11       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                          No. 22-10269

          The City’s use-of-force policy requires that:
          1. [I]n determining the necessity for force and the appropriate
             level of force, officers shall evaluate each situation in light
             of the known circumstances, including, but not limited to,
             the seriousness of the crime, the level of threat or resistance
             presented by the subject, and the danger to themselves and
             the community.
          2. In evaluating the reasonable application of force, officers
             may consider their own age, size, strength, and skill level
             with department weapons, state of health, and the number
             of officers opposing the number of suspects.
          Edwards argues that this policy is unconstitutional because it allows
   an officer to rely on “subjective criteria,” “subjective beliefs,” and
   “subjective evaluations.” Specifically, Edwards says that the policy is
   “unconstitutional on its face” because it “would justify the use of deadly
   force by a younger, more inexperienced officer . . . , even if the situation did
   not objectively call for the use of deadly force.” This argument breaks down
   because the policy excerpts that Edwards relies on set forth only objective
   factors—that is, “the facts and circumstances confronting the officer.” 33
   While Edwards asserts that the policy would allow deadly force anytime an
   officer “felt threatened by someone,” he does not connect that assertion to
   any language from the policy. On the contrary, a close look at the policy
   reveals that each factor is objective.
          Edwards does not dispute that the first paragraph contains only
   objective factors. Nor could he. It is beyond debate that officers may consider
   factors such as “the seriousness of the crime, the level of threat or resistance
   presented by the subject, and the danger to themselves and the

          33
               Mason, 806 F.3d at 275 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

                                                11
Case: 22-10269          Document: 00516781836              Page: 12       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                            No. 22-10269

   community.”34 Instead, Edwards takes issue with the factors that appear in
   the second paragraph. But these factors are likewise objective
   “circumstances confronting the officer”35—obviously so for “age, size, . . .
   and the number of officers opposing the number of suspects.” The remaining
   three factors may not as readily reduce to numerical certainty, but that does
   not mean that they lack objectivity. “Strength,” “skill level,” and “state of
   health” are all questions of fact, not feeling. Each of these inquiries relates to
   the predominant factor, which is “whether the suspect poses a threat to the
   safety of the officers.”36 It is true that some officers are stronger than others,
   or more proficient with weapons, but Edwards errs by equating those
   objective physical variances with the subjective mental appraisals that the
   Constitution prohibits.
           Because the policy does not affirmatively allow or compel an officer to
   use deadly force based solely on the officer’s own “underlying intent or
   motivation,”37 Edwards’s argument from subjectivity fails.
                                                  B
           “[A] municipality’s failure to train its police officers can without
   question give rise to § 1983 liability.” 38 To succeed, the plaintiff must
   demonstrate that: “(1) the city failed to train or supervise the officers
   involved; (2) there is a causal connection between the alleged failure to
   supervise or train and the alleged violation of the plaintiff’s rights; and (3)

           34
                See, e.g., Crane, 50 F.4th at 463 (quoting Graham, 490 U.S. at 396).
           35
                Mason, 806 F.3d at 275 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
           36
                Crane, 50 F.4th at 463.
           37
                Mason, 806 F.3d at 275 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
           38
             World Wide St. Preachers Fellowship v. Town of Columbia, 591 F.3d 747, 755 (5th
   Cir. 2009).

                                                  12
Case: 22-10269       Document: 00516781836              Page: 13       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                         No. 22-10269

   the failure to train or supervise constituted deliberate indifference to the
   plaintiff’s constitutional rights.’”39 “[F]or liability to attach based on an
   inadequate training claim, a plaintiff must allege with specificity how a
   particular training program is defective.”40 Deliberate indifference is a “high
   standard” that requires “a complete disregard of the risk that a violation of a
   particular constitutional right would follow the decision.” 41
           “To show deliberate indifference, a plaintiff normally must allege a
   pattern of similar constitutional violations by untrained employees.” 42 “A
   pattern requires similarity and specificity; prior indications cannot simply be
   for any and all ‘bad’ or unwise acts, but rather must point to the specific
   violation in question.”43 Because deliberate indifference typically requires a
   pattern, “we have stressed that a single incident is usually insufficient to
   demonstrate deliberate indifference.”44 The “‘single incident exception’ is

           39
            Pena, 879 F.3d at 623 (additional parentheses added) (quoting Thompson v.
   Upshur Cnty., 245 F.3d 447, 459 (5th Cir. 2001)).
           40
             Trammell v. Fruge, 868 F.3d 332, 345 (5th Cir. 2017) (quoting Zarnow v. City of
   Wichita Falls, 614 F.3d 161, 170 (5th Cir. 2010)).
           41
              Liggins, 52 F.4th at 955 (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks and
   citations omitted ).
           42
              Henderson v. Harris Cnty., 51 F.4th 125, 131 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation
   marks and citations omitted). Compare Fuentes v. Nueces Cnty., 689 F. App’x 775, 778 (5th
   Cir. 2017) (affirming summary judgment for the county because the plaintiff failed to
   provide evidence of prior incidents involving the same specific wrongful action—failure to
   adequately monitor an inmate on suicide watch), with Bond v. Nueces Cnty., No. 20-40050,
   2022 WL 4595000, at *6–7 (5th Cir. Sept. 30, 2022) (reversing order denying leave to
   amend as futile because, in the proposed amended complaint, the plaintiff cited twenty-
   three examples of prior incidents involving the same specific wrongful action—failure or
   refusal to provide timely medical attention).
           43
             Peterson, 588 F.3d at 851 (emphasis added) (alterations adopted) (internal
   quotation marks and citations omitted).
           44
              Liggins, 52 F.4th at 956 (alterations adopted) (internal quotation marks and
   citations omitted).

                                               13
Case: 22-10269          Document: 00516781836                Page: 14    Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                            No. 22-10269

   extremely narrow,”45 and as an exception to the pattern requirement, it “is
   generally reserved for those cases in which the government actor was
   provided no training whatsoever.”46
                                                   1
           Edwards argues that the City “failed to provide . . . appropriate
   remedial force training.” He relies on a few examples to establish what he
   sees as a factual question regarding a pattern of violations: (1) Oliver
   previously “slamm[ed] Luis Medina, Jr. to the ground . . . while Medina was
   experiencing an epileptic seizure,” and (2) a different officer previously
   “sho[t] an unarmed male” and “assault[ed] an inmate who he claimed
   verbally assaulted him.” Edwards also points to evidence of “two other
   instances in which an officer shot at a moving vehicle.”
           These examples lack “similarity and specificity,” and therefore they
   do not “point to the specific violation in question.” 47 Oliver’s prior body-
   slam is dissimilar to this case because it did not involve a moving vehicle. So
   too for the different officer’s prior shooting and prior assault. While Edwards
   does point to some scant evidence for two shootings that did each involve a
   vehicle, he does not describe those instances at all—indeed, he does not
   identify any evidence that the shootings even violated the department’s use-
   of-force policy. Even for a city as small as Balch Springs, these “isolated
   instances” of previous departures from the overall use-of-force policy cannot

           45
            Valle v. City of Houston, 613 F.3d 536, 542 (5th Cir. 2010); see Peterson, 588 F.3d
   at 850–51 (“It is thus clear that a plaintiff must demonstrate a ‘pattern of abuses that
   transcends the error made in a single case.’”) (quoting Piotrowski, 237 F.3d at 582); see also
   Mason, 806 F.3d at 281 (holding that plaintiff could not show Monell liability because he
   had “not provided evidence of problems with [the City’s] disciplinary and investigatory
   procedures outside the present case”).
           46
                Pena, 879 F.3d at 624.
           47
                Peterson, 588 F.3d at 851 (5th Cir. 2009).

                                                  14
Case: 22-10269         Document: 00516781836              Page: 15       Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                           No. 22-10269

   establish a pattern of deliberate indifference.48 As a result, these examples are
   not enough to satisfy the causality standard that is Monell’s third element.
   Edwards’s failure-to-train claim therefore falls short.
                                                 2
          Edwards also argues that he raised a fact issue concerning “the City’s
   failure to supervise or discipline.” He describes the “main component” of
   that claim as follows: “[T]he City lacked any sort of system to identify and
   track use of force incidents by their officers and, by failing to do so, created
   an atmosphere that condoned and ratified reckless and dangerous behavior
   by its police officers.” This allegation does not relieve Edwards of his burden
   to establish “a pattern of similar constitutional violations” to show deliberate
   indifference.49 Edwards responds by pointing to the irony that arises if he
   must identify violations that the City refuses to track. But this argument
   confuses tracking and supervision. A municipality is capable of supervising its
   employees even if it does not maintain a perpetual record of their every
   infraction.
          Because Edwards has identified no law that requires the City to
   maintain a “system to identify and track use of force incidents,” his
   supervisory and disciplinary theories can succeed only if he identifies “a
   pattern of similar constitutional violations.”50 He has not done so. Instead,
   he points to the “violations” discussed above, plus two others: (1) Oliver,
   while off-duty and without provocation, “pulled a gun on another driver
   following a routine traffic accident,” and (2) in 2013, Oliver shared a
   Facebook post which read that “I will never in my life be as good at anything

          48
               Id.
          49
               Henderson, 51 F.4th at 131 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
          50
               Id.

                                                 15
Case: 22-10269         Document: 00516781836                Page: 16   Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                            No. 22-10269

   else as I am at killing people.” As above, these incidences lack “similarity and
   specificity,” and so they do not “point to the specific violation in question.”51
          The prior violations that Edwards identifies certainly reflect
   individual action that is “bad or unwise,” 52 but as for the City, they do not
   amount to “a complete disregard of the risk that a violation of a particular
   constitutional right would follow.”53 Because deliberate indifference is
   absent, Edwards’s supervisory and disciplinary theories cannot succeed, and
   that means that Edwards cannot satisfy Monell’s third element.
                                                 C
          Edwards makes a few perfunctory references to other theories of
   liability, but none comes anywhere near requiring reversal. For example, he
   states that “[d]eliberate indifference can also be based on a single incident”
   rather than a pattern. But he does not expound that theory, and he never
   argues that any of the prior misconduct he alleges can satisfy the single-
   incident test for deliberate indifference. He also argues that the City had
   “insufficient hiring” practices, and that it “should not have hired Oliver.”
   But his reply brief concedes that he “does not make a stand-alone negligent
   hiring claim.” Hiring is relevant only if it has a “similarity and specificity”
   relationship to the unlawful conduct that Edwards complains of. 54 Because
   that relationship does not exist, Edwards’s “hiring” arguments are
   irrelevant. Finally, he argues that: “When viewed as a whole, the prior
   incidents involving other officers plus Oliver’s own violent conduct show a

          51
               Peterson, 588 F.3d at 851 (5th Cir. 2009).
          52
               Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
          53
             Liggins, 52 F.4th at 955 (emphasis added) (alterations adopted) (internal
   quotation marks and citations omitted).
          54
             Peterson, 588 F.3d at 851 (emphasis added) (alterations adopted) (internal
   quotation marks and citations omitted).

                                                 16
Case: 22-10269       Document: 00516781836          Page: 17    Date Filed: 06/09/2023

                                     No. 22-10269

   pattern of the excessive use of force by Balch Springs officers, from which it
   is reasonable to infer that the City has a policy of ‘shoot first, ask questions
   later.’” Edwards does not identify any legal support for this “as a whole”
   theory of liability. On the contrary, a plaintiff cannot establish a pattern based
   solely on “any and all ‘bad’ or unwise acts, but rather must point to the
   specific violation in question.”55 Edwards never meets that hurdle.
                                          IV
          A local government’s official, written policy is itself unconstitutional
   only if it affirmatively allows or compels unconstitutional conduct. The
   City’s policy passes muster under that standard. It does not affirmatively
   allow officers to use deadly force absent an immediate threat, and it does not
   affirmatively allow officers to rely on subjective factors when evaluating
   whether to use deadly force. Likewise, the prior constitutional violations that
   Edwards relies on are too dissimilar and generalized to establish a pattern.
   For that reason, Edwards cannot show that the City’s training, supervisory,
   and disciplinary failures (if any) arose from deliberate indifference. In turn,
   he cannot satisfy Monell’s third element.
          We AFFIRM.

          55
               Id.

                                           17