Moore v. Saint Paul Police Department

Background

The court had previously granted summary judgment for the Saint Paul Police Department (SPPD) on Mariama Moore’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed the case with prejudice. Moore appealed and asked to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees.

Issue

The issue was whether Moore could proceed without paying those fees. Under the applicable rules and statute, the court had to deny that status if the appeal was not taken in good faith. The court explained that an appeal is not taken in good faith when the issues presented are factually or legally frivolous.

Court’s reasoning

The court found Moore’s appeal legally frivolous for two stated reasons.

First, Moore argued that she had sued the individual police officers because she mentioned them in her amended complaint. The court rejected that argument. Moore’s captions named only SPPD, and she did not serve the individual officers within the required time. The court also relied on Moore’s earlier acknowledgment during summary-judgment briefing that she had not sued the officers themselves.

Second, Moore argued that SPPD was vicariously liable for the officers’ alleged constitutional violations. The court rejected that theory because a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employs an officer who allegedly violated the Constitution. The court stated that Moore had not made the officers parties and had not argued or presented evidence that SPPD was liable based on an official policy, unofficial custom, or deliberately indifferent failure to train or supervise.

Disposition

The court denied Moore’s application to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. This order addressed the fee-status application, not the merits of the previously decided summary-judgment ruling.