Hunter v. County of Sacramento, 652 F.3d 1225

Plaintiffs allege excessive force at the Sacramento County Main Jail under a county-wide custom or practice theory (Monell).
Lt. Twomey testified repeated major incidents from 2000–2005 with insufficient investigations or discipline.
The district court granted summary judgment on most claims; Monell claim against County survived to trial.
Plaintiffs proposed supplemental Monell jury instructions detailing various ways to prove custom or practice, including inaction as evidence.
The district court ultimately instructed with a Model 9.4 definition of practice or custom and did not adopt plaintiffs’ supplemental instructions.
A jury verdict favored the County; district court denied a new-trial motion; plaintiffs appealed seeking new instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court err by not giving supplemental Monell instructions?	Hunter-Eley obj. to omission; supplemental instructions clarifying practice/custom were needed.	County's Model 9.4 definition sufficed; supplemental instructions were unnecessary.	No; the court erred in not using plaintiffs’ supplemental instructions.
Was the Model 9.4 definition an incomplete statement of law for this case?	Definition too narrow; failed to cover evidence of inaction and repeated violations as custom.	Definition aligns with Monell framework and not inherently misleading.	Yes; the definition was incomplete and misleading in context.
Was the error prejudicial to plaintiffs given the evidence?	Evidence of repeated uninvestigated violations could have established a custom; proper instructions needed.	Any error was harmless due to other evidentiary support.	Prejudicial; not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Did plaintiffs properly object to the Monell instruction under Rule 51?	Proposed instructions clearly objected to the instruction as written and requested additions.	Objections were not specific or timely enough to preserve error.	Yes; proper, sufficiently specific objections were raised.

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (Supreme Court 1978) (municipal liability requires a policy or custom)
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (Supreme Court 1997) (requires policy or custom, not respondeat superior)
Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1996) (custom must be persistent and widespread)
Nadell v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't, 268 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2001) (custom may be inferred from repeated violations)
Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1992) (evidence of repeated violations supports custom)
McRorie v. Shimoda, 795 F.2d 780 (9th Cir. 1986) (evidence of conduct can establish custom)
Norwood v. Vance, 591 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2010) (objections may be sufficiently specific via proposed instructions)
Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2005) (harmless error standard for jury instructions)
Voohries-Larson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 241 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 2001) (plain error review for lack of proper objections)
Gibson v. County of Washoe, 290 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2002) (Graham factors inform excessive force analysis)
Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (Supreme Court 2011) (expanded discussion of policy or custom evidence and knowledge)