John E. Jones v. City of Memphis, TennesseeJohn E. Jones v. City of Memphis, Tennessee
I.
Thе issue in this case is whether a municipality can be held liable for the misconduct of its employees under the doctrine of
respondeat superior
in a civil rights action brought directly under the fourteenth amendment and the general federal question statute,
In a memorаndum decision on a motion to dismiss the complaint published at
We reverse and hold that the tort doctrine of
respondeat superior
does not apply to actions brought against a municipal corporation directly under the fourteenth amendment and
II.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in
Monell v. Department of Social Services,
Although
Monroe
barred litigants from bringing actions against municipalities under
This Circuit has held consistently that a direct cause ’ of actiоn under
At least six other cirсuits have reached this conclusion, based upon the teachings of
Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
III.
The only issue on this appeal is whether the doctrine of
respondeat superior
should be applied to actions against municipalities brought directly under the fourteenth amendment and
In Monell the Supreme Court said:
[T]he language of§ 1983 , read against the background of the same legislative history, comрels the conclusion that Congress did not intend municipalities to be held liable unless action pursuant to official municipal policy of some nature caused a constitutional tort. In pаrticular, we conclude that a municipality cannot be held liable solely because it emplоys a tortfeasor — or, in other words, a municipality cannot be held liable under§ 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.436 U.S. at 691 ,98 S.Ct. at 2036 .
We conclude that the rationale of
Monell,
which, of coursе was not available to the district judge at the time of his
Even if we were without the guidance of
Monell
concerning the scope of municipal liability for deprivation of civil rights, we would hold that thе doctrine of
respondeat superior
is inapplicable in the present case. The day before
Monell
was rendered, the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, rejected the applicаtion of
respondeat superior
in fourteenth amendment actions against municipalities. In
Turpin v. Mailet, supra,
See also Nix v. Sweeney,
Appellee’s cause of action against the City of Memphis is premised solely оn the fact that the police officers were employed by the City and were acting within the sсope of their employment when they allegedly violated appellee’s constitutional rights. Our holding is that a municipality sued directly under the Constitution and
We recognize that the scope of municipal liability enunciated by the Second Circuit in
Turpin
may not be identical to the extent of municipal liability indicated by the Supreme Court in
Monell.
We express no views in this opinion as to the “full contours of municipal liability.”
Monell,
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we hold that the City of Memphis cannot be held liablе in an action brought under the Constitution and
Notes
.
Moneli
overruled
Monroe
insofar “as it holds that local governments are wholly immune from suit under
[T]hat the doctrine of respondeat superior is not a basis for rendering municipalities liable under § 1983 for the constitutional torts of their employees.436 U.S. at 663 ,98 S.Ct. at 2022 , & n.7.
. This opinion likewise was not available to the district judge at the time of his decision.