Zhang v. County of Monterey
- Lucy Koh
- 5:17-cv-00007
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Zhang v. County of Monterey, Judge Koh explained Monell liability standards and denied Zhang’s request to limit the defense’s trial arguments.
Jacqueline Zhang and the County of Monterey defendants; the order governs the parties’ jury instructions, verdict form, and arguments and evidence concerning municipal liability.
What happened
In Zhang v. County of Monterey, the parties disputed how Jacqueline Zhang could prove that the County itself was responsible for an alleged constitutional violation under Section 1983.
The court explained that municipal liability may be based on an official policy or longstanding custom, a decision by a final policymaker, or a final policymaker’s approval of a subordinate’s decision and its basis. It also said that an employee’s discretion or authorization to act is not enough by itself.
Judge Lucy H. Koh ruled that the proposed jury instructions and verdict form needed to address all three possible bases for municipal liability. She denied Zhang’s request to prevent the defendants from arguing that she had not established municipal liability.
The detailed version
- Zhang v. County of Monterey · No. 5:17-cv-00007
- Lucy Koh
- June 4, 2021
Background
The parties submitted several rounds of briefing about the ways Jacqueline Zhang could establish municipal liability against the County of Monterey under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The order concerns liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, which generally requires a municipality itself—not merely one of its employees—to have caused the constitutional violation through an official policy or custom.
The court stated that it was continuing to research and analyze municipal liability and might issue additional orders.
Legal standards
The court identified three ways Zhang could establish municipal liability:
- An employee committed a constitutional violation under an expressly adopted policy or a longstanding practice or custom that operated as the local government’s standard procedure.
- The employee who committed the violation was a final policymaker in the particular area involved. Whether an official had that status is governed by state law, although the court may also consider how the local government operates in practice.
- An official with final policymaking authority ratified, or approved, a subordinate’s decision and the basis for that decision.
The court emphasized that an official’s discretion—including authority to hire and fire employees—or authorization from the County to act does not by itself establish final policymaking authority. The official must have responsibility for establishing final government policy in the area connected to the alleged constitutional violation. The court also said that merely acquiescing in a subordinate’s decision is not enough for ratification; the policymaker must approve both the decision and its basis.
Rulings on trial materials
The court found the defendants’ proposed Special Jury Instruction No. 3 incomplete because it did not include the final-policymaker and ratification bases for municipal liability.
The court found Zhang’s proposed Special Jury Instruction No. 15 misleading because it treated discretion as equivalent to final policymaking authority. The court said Zhang would need to establish that Ellerbee or Guertin were responsible for establishing final government policy concerning the decision at issue; showing only that they could act in their own discretion would not be enough. The court also found Zhang’s proposed instruction on later County approval or adoption incomplete because it did not require approval of both the subordinate’s decision and the basis for it.
The court agreed with the defendants that the special verdict form for Zhang’s procedural-due-process claim under Section 1983 should include a question about municipal liability. But it found the defendants’ proposed form incomplete because it listed only an expressly adopted policy or widespread or longstanding custom and omitted decisions by final policymakers and ratification by final policymakers. The court said the form must include those additional bases.
Evidence and arguments
Zhang asked the court to bar the defendants from arguing or presenting evidence that the acts connected to her discharge were not County acts, were not authorized or approved by the County, or did not involve a custom, policy, or practice denying rights. She also argued that the defendants should not be permitted to raise a Monell defense because they had admitted that the acts were authorized acts of the County.
The court rejected that request. It held that the defendants could argue that Zhang had not established municipal liability under Section 1983 and Monell. It further held that County authorization did not by itself show that the person involved had final policymaking authority for the particular decision.
Disposition
The court DENIED Zhang’s request to prevent the defendants from presenting evidence or arguments that she had failed to establish municipal liability under Section 1983 and Monell. The order did not decide whether Zhang ultimately proved municipal liability.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.