Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nick Stein, a self-represented plaintiff, sued the City of San Diego, several police officers, and the former police chief over a June 29, 2022 incident at Mission Beach Park. He alleges he was attacked by a gang, sought assistance from Officer Fanlo, but instead of helping was himself violently grabbed, handcuffed, and arrested for “doing flutter kicks” and other “weird” things. He claims Officer Fanlo filed a false police report identifying Stein as the aggressor and that the officer was biased against Stein for using the word “Mexican” to describe his alleged assailants.
Stein brought 11 claims, including six §1983 claims against the individual officers and three Monell claims against the City. Monell claims — named after the Supreme Court’s Monell v. Department of Social Services decision — are the route to municipal liability for constitutional violations. They typically come in three flavors: (1) policy or custom; (2) failure to train, supervise, or discipline; and (3) ratification by an authorized policymaker. The City moved to dismiss the three Monell claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted dismissal of all three Monell claims, with one final chance to amend.
On the policy-or-custom theory, plaintiffs must allege a longstanding custom that is so persistent it constitutes the “standard operating procedure” of the entity, plus a direct causal link between the custom and the constitutional violation. Stein cobbled together several SDPD incidents — some pre-dating his case, some post-dating it — involving excessive force, false reporting, racial bias, and other misconduct, plus 2018 and 2020 community concerns about SDPD’s handling of de-escalation. The court found these incidents too varied and too unconnected to establish a single, well-settled custom that served as the moving force for Officer Fanlo’s specific alleged conduct. Allegations that other on-scene officers “ratified” Fanlo’s misconduct also did not advance the claim because those officers were not policymakers — only authorized policymakers can ratify for Monell purposes.
On the failure-to-train theory, plaintiffs must ordinarily show a “pattern of similar constitutional violations” sufficient to demonstrate deliberate indifference, citing Connick v. Thompson. The narrow “single-incident” exception applies only when the need for training is “so obvious” that failure amounts to deliberate indifference (the Supreme Court’s example: arming officers without training them on the constitutional limits of deadly force). Stein argued the need to train officers on accepting crime reports, managing racial biases, and not filing false reports was “so obvious.” The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s Flores v. County of Los Angeles rule that the obvious-need exception does not extend to conduct (like sexual assault, or here, false reporting) that is already criminally prohibited and that everyone is presumed to know not to do.
On the ratification theory, plaintiffs must show that authorized policymakers had knowledge of the constitutional violation and actually approved it. Stein alleged that he sent detailed letters to the Mayor and the Chief, who failed to investigate or discipline Fanlo. But under the Ninth Circuit’s Christie v. Iopa decision, mere failure to overrule a subordinate’s act does not constitute approval. There were no allegations that the Mayor or Chief actually concluded the officer’s conduct was unconstitutional and approved it.
Key Takeaways
- Monell policy-or-custom claims require allegations of a persistent, longstanding custom that constitutes the entity’s standard operating procedure. A grab-bag of unrelated misconduct incidents — some pre-dating, some post-dating the plaintiff’s case — is not enough.
- The single-incident failure-to-train exception is narrow. Where officers are presumed to know the conduct is unlawful (because it is criminal or otherwise obvious), the exception does not apply, and the plaintiff must show a pattern of similar prior violations.
- Only authorized policymakers can ratify for Monell purposes. On-scene officers who acquiesce in a colleague’s conduct do not satisfy the ratification element.
- Mere failure to discipline a subordinate after receiving a complaint, without more, does not constitute ratification. The plaintiff must show actual knowledge of the constitutional violation and affirmative approval.
Why It Matters
Monell liability is a high bar. This decision walks through all three principal Monell theories with citations to controlling Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit cases, making it a useful reference for civil-rights litigators in the Southern District of California. The court’s strict application of the single-incident failure-to-train exception is particularly notable: alleging that officers should have been trained better on widely understood obligations like “don’t file false reports” will not get a Monell claim past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
For California municipal defendants, the case is a useful template for moving to dismiss Monell claims that lump together unrelated misconduct incidents. For plaintiffs alleging police misconduct, the decision is a reminder that the path to municipal liability requires either substantial evidence of a real pattern of similar violations or affirmative approval by an actual policymaker.