new1 Monell

What “Monell” Means (Explained Simply + Legally Precise)

Monell refers to the U.S. Supreme Court case Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978). It established when a city, county, or police department can be held liable for civil-rights violations committed by its officers.

In short:

• Monell = You can sue the city (not just the officers) if the violation was caused by a city policy, city custom, or city failure to act.
• Not every officer mistake creates city liability.
• But when the violation grows out of the way the city operates, it can be held responsible.

The Four Ways to Prove Monell Liability

Under Monell, harm must come from one of these:

1. Official Policy

A written rule, order, or official policy that leads to the violation. Direct city action = liability

Example: A written policy encouraging a dangerous arrest technique.

2. Widespread Custom / Practice

Not written — but officers routinely do it, and the city allows it. Custom = city condoning repeated misconduct

Example: Long-standing pattern of tight handcuffing or excessive baton use.

3. Failure to Train

The department does not properly train officers, causing constitutional violations. Inadequate training = Monell liability

Example: Officers misunderstanding assault vs. battery or not being trained on loosening handcuffs. This appeared in your case.

4. Failure to Investigate or Discipline (Ratification)

If the city knows officers are doing something wrong but fails to correct it, that inaction counts as approval. Ratification = passive endorsement

Example from your case:

• Chief claims he only learned about baton use two years later
• No timely internal affairs review
• Dispatch tape “blank” with no inquiry
• Officers contradict each other with no disciplinary consequences

Classic Monell ratification

Why Monell Matters in YOUR Case

You are not only accusing individual officers. You are arguing that the City of Pasadena itself is responsible because:

A. Training was inconsistent and possibly inadequate

Officers disagreed about:

• Policies
• Handcuff procedures
• Definitions of assault vs. battery
• Required training hours
• Whether loosening handcuffs is policy

Poor training → excessive force → city liability

B. Complaint was NOT investigated for years

The Chief admitted he learned of baton use “in the last few weeks”—but the event was two years old. Textbook Monell failure-to-investigate

C. Dispatch tape mysteriously “blank”

No one checked why. Courts view destroyed or missing evidence as a sign of policy failure or cover-up, both relevant to Monell.

D. Conflicting testimony with no internal accountability

When:

• One officer says baton use
• Another denies baton use
• Another says he never saw it
• A witness says nothing happened
• A supervisor forgets a key detail
• Officers misstate basic law

…and the city does nothing, that’s evidence of a custom of tolerating misconduct.

The Purpose of Monell in Your Appeal

Monell is your argument that:

“This was not an isolated bad moment; this was the product of Pasadena’s system—its training, policies, failures, and lack of oversight.”

If proven, the City becomes legally responsible, not just the officers.

“Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Thy law is the truth.” — Psalm 119:142