Opinion
3:00-CV-2463-R.
May 23, 2001.
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a pleading seeking leave to add a defendant and objecting to or appealing from the United States Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss certain of his claims. After considering the objections and making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that Plaintiff s objections are overruled, the partial findings and conclusions the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add the City of Dallas as a defendant. Plaintiff apparently believes that the City of Dallas employs the officers against whom he has directed an excessive force claim and seeks to hold the City liable on the theory of respondeat superior and negligent supervision. The officers are employed by the County. Whether he seeks to add the City or the County, the amendment would be futile. A local governmental entity such as a county or municipality cannot be held liable for a civil rights violation under a theory of vicarious liability or respondeat superior. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691-95 (1978); Eugene v. Alief Ind. Sch. Dist., 65 F.3d 1299, 1304 (5th Cir. 1995). To state a claim against a local governmental entity, Plaintiff would have to allege that his civil rights were violated, that he was injured, and that the injury resulted from the exercise of the government's "official policy." Monell, 436 U.S. at 694; Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762, 766 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1016 (1985). An official policy is:
1. A policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision that is officially adopted and promulgated by the governing body's lawmaking officers or by an official to whom the lawmakers have delegated policy-making authority; or
2. A persistent, widespread practice of governmental officials or employees, which, although not authorized by officially adopted and promulgated policy, is so common and well settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents municipal policy. Actual or constructive knowledge of such custom must be attributable to the governing body of the governmental entity or to an official to whom that body had delegated policy-making authority. Actions of officers or employees of a governmental unit do not render the unit liable under § 1983 unless they execute official policy as defined above.Webster v. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir.), reh' granted on other grounds, 739 F.2d 993 (1984) (en banc). Plaintiff has not alleged specific facts which show that: (1) a policy or custom existed; (2) the governmental policymakers actually or constructively knew of its existence; (3) a constitutional violation occurred; and (4) the custom or policy served as the moving force behind the violation. Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn, 81 F.3d 521, 532 (5th Cir. 1996). His only allegation with respect to the employer is the conclusory allegation that it failed to supervise employees it knew had a propensity to harass and retaliate against Blacks who exercise their First Amendment rights. Plaintiff cites no specific facts showing other instances of excessive force, the government's knowledge of them, and its ratification of a custom of excessive force. Leave to amend the complaint is denied because the amendment would be futile.