Monacelli v. City of Dallas, Texas, 24-10067

Steven Monacelli, a freelance journalist, was present at the Dallas George Floyd protests on June 1, 2020, and was detained and struck by a less-than-lethal round while identifying as press.
Monacelli filed a § 1983 action against the City of Dallas and four unnamed officers alleging unlawful arrest, excessive force, First Amendment violations, inadequate training, and failure to adopt preventive policies.
The district court dismissed Monacelli's claims against the City on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, finding the complaint insufficient even after two amendments.
Monacelli appealed only the dismissal of his claims against the City, not the individual officers or the failure-to-discipline claim.
The appeal was reviewed de novo, with the court accepting all well-pleaded facts as true for the purpose of the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dallas Police Department’s General Orders were facially unconstitutional	Policies allowed unconstitutional mass arrests and use of force	Policies are not facially unconstitutional; policies do not affirmatively allow unconstitutional conduct	General Orders not facially unconstitutional
Whether inadequate police training justified municipal liability under Monell	Training was deficient and led to constitutional violations	Training deficiencies were not closely related to injury or product of deliberate indifference	No deliberate indifference; claim dismissed
Whether failure to enact certain policies justified municipal liability	Absence of policies led to Monacelli's injuries	No pattern or utter absence of policy; only inadequate specifics alleged	No plausible claim; no liability
Whether the Police Chief had delegated policymaking authority	Police Chief’s General Orders were official policy	Only city council is policymaker under Fifth Circuit precedent	No delegation; claims relying on this fail

Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability under § 1983 exists only where policy or custom is the moving force behind the violation)
Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intel. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163 (no heightened pleading standard for § 1983 municipal claims)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for claims)
City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112 (proper identification of policymaker for municipal liability)
Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (single-incident exception to deliberate indifference standard)
Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567 (direct liability for municipal action)
Groden v. City of Dallas, 826 F.3d 280 (city council is final policymaker for Dallas)