September 2020 - Parks & Recreation - 32

L AW R EV I EW

and society. " Moreover, Plaintiff
claims her familial relationships
have been harmed and she has suffered mental health ramifications
from both the initial incident and
Officer Porter's continued stalking
and harassment.

Plausible Liability Claim
In response to Plaintiff 's complaint, the Defendants denied any
liability and filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff 's claims.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, " Rule 12(b)
(6), " tests the legal sufficiency of
a complaint. Further, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a
pleading contain " a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief. " In
addition, the complaint must give
the defendant fair notice of what
the claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.

On a motion to dismiss, the
factual allegations of the
complaint must be accepted as
true by the court.
On a motion to dismiss, the factual allegations of the complaint
must be accepted as true by the
court. Moreover, a court is bound
to give a plaintiff the benefit of
every reasonable inference to be
drawn from the " well-pleaded "
allegations of the complaint. A
claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ultimately, a court
30

Parks & Recreation

may not dismiss a complaint in
which the plaintiff has alleged
enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

Municipal Policy or
Custom Liability
In her complaint, Plaintiff had
asserted a number of federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (Section 1983). In its 1978
" Monell " decision, the Supreme
Court of the United States held a
plaintiff bringing a Section 1983
claim against a municipality must
" allege an officer violated her constitutional rights by executing a local government policy or custom. "
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City
of N.Y.C., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91,
98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611
(1978). In this particular instance,
Defendants argued Plaintiff had
alleged " only a single incident of
unconstitutional conduct, " as opposed to the requisite execution
of a " local government policy or
custom " to establish a federal civil
rights claim under Monell.
In response, Plaintiff claimed
her complaint had asserted " various theories of liability " based
upon policy or custom. In particular, Plaintiff claimed " Defendants made a conscious choice
not to properly train Officer Porter and that they condoned his
continued harassment of Plaintiff
in violation of her constitutional
rights. " Plaintiff further alleged,
" these customs or practices were
the cause of the harm inflicted
on her. " Defendants, however,
claimed " none of these subsequent actions involved unconstitutional conduct. "
As noted by the federal district
court: " A municipality may be li-

| S E P T E M B E R 2 02 0 | PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N .O R G

able under Monell for adopting a
policy or custom that inflicts injury; failing to train employees properly to the extent of deliberate indifference to a constitutional right;
or ratifying a subordinate's unconstitutional behavior. "
In this particular instance, the
court found Plaintiff had indeed
alleged sufficient facts to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss her Monell claims against
Defendants Fulton-El Camino
Recreation and Park District and
the Rio Linda Elverta Recreation
and Park District. According to
the court, to sufficiently state a
claim based upon " inadequate
training, supervision, or discipline, " Plaintiff would have to allege the following:
(1) the training program was
inadequate in relation to the tasks
the particular officer must perform; (2) the municipal officials
must have been deliberately indifferent to the rights of persons with
whom the local officials come into
contact; and (3) the inadequacy
of the training was shown to have
actually caused the constitutional
deprivation.
In particular, the court emphasized the fact that, " a municipality's failure to train its employees
in a relevant respect must amount
to deliberate indifference to the
rights of persons with whom the
untrained employees come into
contact. "
Viewing Plaintiff 's complaint
in a favorable light in response to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
in this particular instance, the federal district court found Plaintiff
had sufficiently alleged " a failure
to train that rises to the level of
deliberate indifference by the mu-

September 2020 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2020 - Parks & Recreation