29 F.4th 262
5th Cir.2022Background
- Christopher Arnone pleaded nolo contendere to felony injury to a child and received ten years’ deferred adjudication with conditions including sex-offender treatment and polygraph testing.
- After failing two polygraph tests, Arnone was dismissed from treatment; the Dallas County District Attorney moved to proceed to adjudication, and the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced him to prison.
- Years later the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered Arnone released, holding the adjudication rested solely on polygraph results, which are inadmissible under Texas law (Leonard).
- Arnone sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dallas County and individual officials, alleging the DA’s use of polygraphs reflected an unconstitutional county policy; the district court dismissed his claims.
- On appeal Arnone waived claims against the individual defendants; the Fifth Circuit considered only the § 1983 Monell claim and the failure-to-train/supervise theory against Dallas County.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it held the DA acted as a state policymaker (so Monell liability against the county fails) and that Mowbray precludes county failure-to-train liability for state prosecutors.
Issues
| Issue | Arnone's Argument | Dallas County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dallas County is liable under Monell for the DA’s polygraph policy | DA promulgated/acquiesced in a county policy using polygraph results to trigger revocation; county therefore liable | DA acted as a state official when deciding to seek revocation; no county final policymaker existed so Monell fails | Court: DA acted for the State under McMillian and Daves; no county policymaker; Monell claim dismissed |
| Whether Dallas County can be liable for failure to train or supervise prosecutors | County failed to train/supervise prosecutors, causing constitutional deprivation | Prosecutors (and the DA) are state officers; under Mowbray county cannot be liable for failing to train state officers | Court: Mowbray controls; failure-to-train claim not plausibly pleaded against county; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (local government liability requires policymaker, policy, and causal link)
- McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997) (officials wear ‘‘dual hats’’; attribution depends on the official’s function under state law)
- Daves v. Dallas County, 22 F.4th 522 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (apply McMillian’s function inquiry; county judges acted as state policymakers when promulgating bail schedules)
- Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701 (1989) (identify officials with final policymaking authority for Monell)
- Mowbray v. Cameron County, 274 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2001) (county cannot be liable for failure to train state prosecutors)
- Crane v. Texas (Crane I), 759 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1985) (earlier panel attribution of DA actions to county; later decisions limited its weight)
- Crane v. Texas (Crane II), 766 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1985) (modification and rehearing opinion)
- Leonard v. Texas, 385 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (polygraph results inadmissible under Texas law as not reliable)