Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit • 2010

Santiago v. Warminster Township

629 F.3d 121 | 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 25414

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case shows that after Twombly and Iqbal, alleging that supervisors planned an operation or were in charge is not enough; a § 1983 complaint must plead concrete facts linking their own directions or acquiescence, and any municipal policy, to the specific constitutional injury.

Background

Warminster Township conducted an early-morning “surround and call out” operation at the home of sixty-year-old Gloria Santiago to arrest her grandson, Steve Miranda. Officers from a regional tactical unit ordered the occupants out one at a time at gunpoint. Santiago was patted down, restrained with a plastic zip-tie behind her back, and left seated while officers searched the home. Although she was unarmed, not the target of the warrant, and allegedly posed neither a danger nor a flight risk, she remained restrained for about thirty minutes. She complained of chest pain and was ultimately taken by ambulance to the hospital after suffering a heart attack.

Santiago filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Township, the officers who conducted the raid, and later three senior officers: Police Chief Michael Murphy, Lieutenant Christopher Springfield, and Lieutenant James Donnelly. She alleged that Murphy and Donnelly planned an operation that called for excessive force and that Springfield, who was in charge of the operation, permitted the force used against her. She also sought to hold Warminster liable on the theory that Chief Murphy’s plan constituted Township policy.

The District Court dismissed the claims against the officers at the scene as untimely. It dismissed the claims against the senior officers as impermissible respondeat superior claims and dismissed the municipal claim because the complaint did not allege that Chief Murphy was a final policymaker. Having dismissed the federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. Santiago appealed only the dismissals involving the senior officers and Warminster Township.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Santiago plausibly pleaded § 1983 supervisory liability against Chief Murphy, Lieutenant Donnelly, and Lieutenant Springfield.

Holding

No. Although Santiago alleged personal supervisory theories rather than respondeat superior liability, her complaint did not contain sufficient factual matter to make those theories plausible under Twombly and Iqbal.

Reasoning

The Court first clarified that the complaint was not based solely on the senior officers’ employment relationship with the officers who conducted the raid. Santiago alleged that Chief Murphy and Lieutenant Donnelly planned and authorized the operation, which invoked a theory that they directed subordinates to violate her rights. Her allegation that Lieutenant Springfield “permitted” excessive force invoked a theory that he knew of and acquiesced in subordinates’ misconduct. Those are recognized forms of personal supervisory liability, not respondeat superior liability.

To state a claim against Murphy and Donnelly, Santiago had to plead facts plausibly showing both an underlying constitutional violation by the officers at the scene and a causal connection between the supervisors’ directions and that violation. In practical terms, she needed facts supporting an inference that the supervisors gave directions they knew or reasonably should have known would cause a deprivation of her constitutional rights. To state a claim against Springfield, she needed facts plausibly showing that he knew of the excessive force and acquiesced in it.

The assertions that Murphy and Donnelly’s plan “specifically sought” the conduct that occurred during the raid, and that Springfield “permitted” excessive force, were conclusory. They merely restated the essential elements of supervisory liability: that the first two supervisors told Alpha Team to act unlawfully and that Springfield acquiesced in its conduct. Under Iqbal, such naked assertions do not receive the presumption of truth merely because they are included in a complaint.

The remaining factual allegations did not make the claims plausible. The complaint showed that the occupants were treated differently: Santiago was allegedly threatened, searched, and restrained; the two women who followed her were not handcuffed; and one of the handcuffed grandsons was the target of the arrest warrant. Those facts supported the more obvious alternative explanation that officers on the scene exercised individual discretion, rather than carried out a supervisory plan to use excessive force against every occupant. Likewise, even assuming Springfield was present, the complaint did not allege facts showing that he knew of the force used against Santiago or approved it. The allegations therefore suggested only a possibility of supervisory liability, not a plausible claim.

Issue #2

Whether Santiago plausibly pleaded municipal liability against Warminster Township under Monell.

Holding

No. The complaint did not plausibly allege that an official Township policy or decision caused Santiago’s injury.

Reasoning

Municipal liability under Monell requires an injury inflicted through the execution of a government policy or custom. Santiago argued that Chief Murphy’s operation plan was municipal policy because he was a final policymaker, but the complaint did not adequately allege either that he possessed final policymaking authority or what specific unconstitutional policy he adopted.

More fundamentally, the Court had already concluded that Santiago did not plausibly allege that Chief Murphy’s plan directed the officers to use excessive force against her. Thus, even if Murphy were a final policymaker and his plan could be treated as Township policy, the complaint did not plausibly connect that plan to Santiago’s injury. Without a plausible allegation that execution of Township policy caused the constitutional harm, Warminster could not be liable.

The Court also noted that final-policymaker status is ultimately a legal question, but a plaintiff must still plead facts bearing on that essential Monell element. In any event, Pennsylvania law places authority over the organization and supervision of township police with the township board of supervisors, not the police chief.