Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 117-10

Filed 05/26/2006

Page 1 of 3

P AN IFSC MP TN INSTRUCTION NO. 35 and 36 L ITF ' O E IG (§1983--Municipal Liability) Mr. Cadorna has brought claims under §1983 against the defendant City of Denver. Mr. Cadorna claims that the City of Denver, acting through its chief policy-making officials, deprived him of his constitutionally protected property and liberty interests in his employment and career as a Firefighter pursuant to a policy or custom of the City. Mr. Cadorna need not prove the existence of a formal, written policy that violated his rights. Mr. Cadorna need not prove that he was the victim of a policy or custom that was well-established and widely applied. A municipal entity may adopt a policy or custom to deal with a particular situation or to solve a particular problem. Even a single decision by a City official with final

policy-ma i a toi c n en g Mr C d ra r hs a a e l e o fr r k g uh r o c ri n t y n . a on ' i t s n mp ye r ome s g o employee can constitute a municipal policy or custom sufficient to make the City liable u d r 1 8 fr iai o MrC d ra cnstitutionally protected property or liberty n e § 9 3 o v l o f . a on ' o o tn s interest in his employment and career as a Firefighter. Stated differently, when a municipality such as the City of Denver delegates policy-making authority to its officials, the City is liable under §1983 when their policymaking actions or decisions violate the constitutionally protected property or liberty interests of persons under their control. A policy-making official may violate the constitutionally protected property or liberty interests of a person under his or her control in a variety of ways that do not look like a

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 117-10

Filed 05/26/2006

Page 2 of 3

formal policy or custom, but nevertheless constitute a policy or custom sufficient to establish municipal liability under §1983 for the violation. For example, such a policy or custom can be created when a policy-making official makes a decision, or approves the decision of someone who works for him or her, or establishes a custom or policy for the municipality that, when followed by its employees, violates the constitutionally protected property or liberty interest of a person under their control. I have determined as a matter of law that th Ctsp lyma eswti te e i' oc y i kr i n h h meaning of this instruction were the Chiefs of the Denver Fire Department, the Manager of Public Safety, the Denver City Attorney, the Denver Civil Service Commission Hearing Officer, and the Denver Civil Service Commission. Therefore, if you find that the acts of these persons or entities deprived the Plaintiff of constitutional rights, the City and County of Denver is liable for such deprivations. It is up to you to determine whether their decisions or actions concerning Mr. Cadorna deprived Mr. Cadorna of his federally protected rights in violation of §1983. I caution you that the rules of law that apply to the City and County of Denver are different than the rules of law that ordinarily apply to a private company or person, which may be familiar to some of you. Ordinarily, a private person or corporation is legally responsible for the acts of its employees carried out in the regular course of their duties. T iik o ni tel a ted c i o " s o d a s p r rw i me n h s n w n h a s h o tn fr p n e t u ei " h h a s s w re e o c " th s p r re p n "o a yo s s rn r s rn fl c u e b i e l e s l te u ei rs o d fr n l e o iui w o guy a s d yt mp y e e o s je l s o in the performance of their jobs. As you can see, the rules for determining whether a

Case 1:04-cv-01067-MSK-CBS

Document 117-10

Filed 05/26/2006

Page 3 of 3

municipality is liable for the acts of its employees or officials are not the same. IT must be shown that a policy-making official or body made the decision that is challenged. Authority: OMae , rn &Lee, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions §168.101 ' ly G e i l g (5th ed. 2001) adapted from the 11th Circuit. Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986); St.