Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Phillip Sanchez's complaint against the City of Albuquerque. Sanchez alleged that the negligent actions of Albuquerque Police Department officers in allowing another person to impersonate him on two occasions constituted a civil rights violation. However, the court found that Sanchez failed to allege that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation, which is required to establish municipal liability under §1983. Additionally, mere negligence is insufficient to demonstrate a constitutional violation. The dismissal with prejudice was also deemed appropriate since Sanchez had already amended his complaint once without addressing its deficiencies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    32 views5 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Phillip Sanchez's complaint against the City of Albuquerque. Sanchez alleged that the negligent actions of Albuquerque Police Department officers in allowing another person to impersonate him on two occasions constituted a civil rights violation. However, the court found that Sanchez failed to allege that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation, which is required to establish municipal liability under §1983. Additionally, mere negligence is insufficient to demonstrate a constitutional violation. The dismissal with prejudice was also deemed appropriate since Sanchez had already amended his complaint once without addressing its deficiencies.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-05-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-2107

    Original Title

    Sanchez v. City of Albuquerque, 10th Cir. (2003)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Phillip Sanchez's complaint against the City of Albuquerque. Sanchez alleged that the negligent actions of Albuquerque Police Department officers in allowing another person to impersonate him on two occasions constituted a civil rights violation. However, the court found that Sanchez failed to allege that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation, which is required to establish municipal liability under §1983. Additionally, mere negligence is insufficient to demonstrate a constitutional violation. The dismissal with prejudice was also deemed appropriate since Sanchez had already amended his complaint once without addressing its deficiencies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    32 views5 pages

    Filed: Patrick Fisher

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal with prejudice of Phillip Sanchez's complaint against the City of Albuquerque. Sanchez alleged that the negligent actions of Albuquerque Police Department officers in allowing another person to impersonate him on two occasions constituted a civil rights violation. However, the court found that Sanchez failed to allege that a municipal policy or custom caused a constitutional violation, which is required to establish municipal liability under §1983. Additionally, mere negligence is insufficient to demonstrate a constitutional violation. The dismissal with prejudice was also deemed appropriate since Sanchez had already amended his complaint once without addressing its deficiencies.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 5

    F I L E D

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

    United States Court of Appeals


    Tenth Circuit

    MAY 8 2003

    PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk

    PHILLIP SANCHEZ,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE,

    No. 02-2107
    (D.C. No. CIV-01-914-RLP/WWD)
    (D. N.M.)

    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT

    Before HARTZ , OBRIEN , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.

    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to grant the parties request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    ordered submitted without oral argument.

    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

    Plaintiff seeks review of the dismissal of his complaint, with prejudice,

    in

    which he alleged a violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against
    defendant City of Albuquerque. The action was initially filed in state court and
    removed to federal court by the defendant. We have jurisdiction and we affirm.
    Plaintiff contends he was arrested, jailed, and inconvenienced because on
    two occasions in 1999 officers of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD)
    allowed another person to falsely identify himself as plaintiff after separate traffic
    stops. Plaintiff further claims that this negligent conduct by APD officers
    constituted a constitutional deprivation under 1983.
    We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P.
    12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

    Sutton v. Utah State Sch. for Deaf & Blind

    173 F.3d 1226, 1236 (10th Cir. 1999). When a party moves to dismiss under
    Rule 12(b)(6), the movant must show beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove
    no set of facts to support his claim entitling him to relief.

    Conley v. Gibson ,

    355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).


    The magistrate judge correctly noted that the Supreme Court has held that
    local governments can be sued for damages for actions that unconstitutionally
    implement or execute a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision that

    The parties consented to proceeding to judgment before a magistrate judge


    in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1).

    -2-

    has been officially promulgated or adopted by that bodys officers or for


    constitutional deprivations based on governmental custom, even though not
    formally approved by the bodys decisionmaking channels.

    Monell v. Dept of

    Social Servs. , 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). However, a government body cannot
    be held liable under 1983 based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, i.e.,
    because the body employs a tortfeasor.

    Id. at 691.

    Plaintiffs amended complaint alleged only that the APD (not the individual
    officers) acted in a negligent manner in failing to obtain positive identification
    from the person who impersonated plaintiff on two occasions. He contended that
    negligent conduct under these circumstances gives rise to a direct claim of
    [c]onstitutional deprivation remedial under 1983. Aplt. App. at 7.
    On appeal, he first argues that the magistrate judge erred in dismissing his
    amended complaint because he failed to prove a claim of municipal liability. This
    is not the case. Plaintiff failed to even allege the requisite elements of a claim
    against the City of Albuquerque, i.e., that a municipal employee committed a
    constitutional violation and that a municipal policy or custom constituted the
    moving force behind that constitutional violation.

    Myers v. Okla. County Bd. of

    County Commrs , 151 F.3d 1313, 1316 (10th Cir. 1998). Negligence, which is all
    plaintiff alleged, is insufficient to state a constitutional violation.
    Williams , 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986).
    -3-

    See Daniels v.

    Next, plaintiff claims the magistrate judge erred in failing to afford him
    notice or the opportunity to amend his complaint to correct his pleading
    deficiencies. He asserts that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from
    [his] designation of the City as the party defendant is that [he] contends that the
    City of Albuquerque has liability to him for the actions of its patrol officers.
    Aplt. Br. at 11. However, a municipality may not be held liable under 1983
    solely because one or more of its employees has inflicted injury on the plaintiff.
    Hinton v. City of Elwood , 997 F.2d 774, 782 (10th Cir. 1993). Rather, to
    establish municipal liability, a plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a
    municipal policy or custom, and (2) that there is a direct causal link between the
    policy or custom and the injury alleged.

    Id. Plaintiff completely failed to allege

    either element, and this failure is not a mere technical error.


    Finally, plaintiff claims the magistrate judge erred in dismissing his
    complaint with prejudice. We review the dismissal of a complaint with prejudice
    under an abuse of discretion standard.

    United States ex rel. Stone v. Rockwell

    Intl Corp. , 282 F.3d 787, 809 (10th Cir. 2002). Although plaintiff contends he
    had no notice or opportunity to amend his complaint, the docket sheet reflects that
    he had already amended his complaint once, he was on notice of the amended
    complaints deficiencies by defendants motion to dismiss, and he made no
    attempt to further amend his complaint prior to the magistrate judges dismissal of
    -4-

    his case. The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in dismissing
    plaintiffs complaint with prejudice.
    AFFIRMED .

    Entered for the Court

    Terrence L. OBrien
    Circuit Judge

    -5-

    You might also like