Quick 1983 Question Help? Forum

[qq11184]

Hi. I just have an idiot 1L Q

For section 1983 municipal liability, there can't be municipal liability unless there's individual liability as well, right?

So if the individual official being sued successfully claims qualified immunity, there's no way to just sue the municipality directly, since qualified immunity means there's no liability on the part of the official, right?

Thanks in advance, sorry, just freaking out over finals

[criminaltheory]

Hi. I just have an idiot 1L Q

For section 1983 municipal liability, there can't be municipal liability unless there's individual liability as well, right?

So if the individual official being sued successfully claims qualified immunity, there's no way to just sue the municipality directly, since qualified immunity means there's no liability on the part of the official, right?

Thanks in advance, sorry, just freaking out over finals

Wrong. Particularly in QI cases where jury finds liability but QI, city can be on the hook. QI means there was a const violation, but the officer acted in good faith or some shit. At SJ, may be more of an issue bc of how a court can perform order of operations-court can find that law wasnt clearly established and ignore question of cinst violation, thus making a monell claim weaker.

[qq11184]

Hi. I just have an idiot 1L Q

For section 1983 municipal liability, there can't be municipal liability unless there's individual liability as well, right?

So if the individual official being sued successfully claims qualified immunity, there's no way to just sue the municipality directly, since qualified immunity means there's no liability on the part of the official, right?

Thanks in advance, sorry, just freaking out over finals

Wrong. Particularly in QI cases where jury finds liability but QI, city can be on the hook. QI means there was a const violation, but the officer acted in good faith or some shit. At SJ, may be more of an issue bc of how a court can perform order of operations-court can find that law wasnt clearly established and ignore question of cinst violation, thus making a monell claim weaker.

D'oh, I knew I was fucking up somewhere. Thanks a bunch