The following excerpt is from Kong Meng Xiong v. City of Merced, Case No. 1:13-cv-00083-SKO, Case No. 1:13-cv-00111-SKO (E.D. Cal. 2013):
constitutional violation pursuant to a formal governmental policy or a longstanding practice or custom which constitutes the standard operating procedure of the local governmental entity;" (2) "the plaintiff may establish that the individual who committed the constitutional tort was an official with final policy-making authority and that the challenged action itself thus constituted an act of official governmental policy;" or (3) "the plaintiff may prove that an official with final policy-making authority ratified a subordinate's unconstitutional decision or action and the basis for it." Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1992). A city may only be held liable under Section 1983 where its policy or custom is the "moving force behind the constitutional violation." City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 389 (1989).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.