Murphy v. City of Tulsa, 950 F.3d 641

Michelle Murphy confessed during a Tulsa Police interrogation to the killing of her infant son after an allegedly coercive interview in which she was threatened she would never see her daughter again; she later recanted.
Murphy was convicted, served about 20 years, then had her conviction vacated and the prosecution dismissed with prejudice.
She sued the City of Tulsa under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a constitutional violation by an officer and municipal liability for an official policy, custom, final policymaker action/ratification, or failure to train.
The district court granted summary judgment to the City, concluding Murphy failed to show any municipal policy or custom causing the violation; the Tenth Circuit reviews that grant de novo.
A key procedural failing: Murphy did not properly present the former police chief’s deposition testimony to the district court (exhibits were scattered and citations incomplete), so the court did not consider that testimony as establishing a policy.
On the merits the panel held: no admissible evidence of a formal policy, informal custom, final policymaker decision or ratification, nor deliberate indifference in training; the City’s 1987 training bulletin expressly forbids threats.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Formal municipal policy authorizing threats	Former police chief testified interrogators had "full authority" to make threats; City rescinded an earlier policy	No admissible evidence of a final policymaker rule; plaintiff failed to present chief's testimony properly; rescinded 1934 policy did not ban threats	No genuine dispute — Murphy failed to show a formal policy authorizing threats
Informal custom (widespread practice)	Interrogations were recurring and threats were standard operating procedure; single-incident exception applies	No evidence of other incidents; single incident insufficient absent policymaker attribution	No genuine dispute — no evidence of a longstanding unconstitutional custom
Final policymaker decision or ratification	Chief’s purported admission amounted to policymaker authorization/ratification	Testimony not properly before district court; sergeant not a final policymaker	No genuine dispute — no admissible proof that a final policymaker authorized or ratified threats
Failure to train (deliberate indifference)	Training deficient; expert opines deviation from standards; City knew threats could cause violations	City provided evidence of training, annual in-service, detective training, monthly legal bulletins and a 1987 bulletin forbidding threats	No genuine dispute — plaintiff failed to show deliberate indifference; training evidence precludes municipal liability

Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (municipal liability when final policymakers establish official policy)
City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (single incident generally insufficient for municipal liability)
Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989) (liability for local governments when a practice becomes standard operating procedure)
Hinton v. City of Elwood, 997 F.2d 774 (10th Cir. 1993) (municipal liability requires policy or custom causing the violation)
Bryson v. City of Oklahoma City, 627 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2010) (sources of municipal policy or custom)
Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (stringent deliberate-indifference standard for failure-to-train claims)
Bd. of County Comm'rs of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397 (1997) (municipal fault for training requires showing of conscious or deliberate disregard)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (failure-to-train framework)
Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 1998) (training evidence can defeat failure-to-train claim)
Yousuf v. Cohlmia, 741 F.3d 31 (10th Cir. 2014) (summary-judgment review standard)