HomeCase briefs › Torts

Owen v. City of Independence

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1980 · Torts
TortsSection 1983Municipal LiabilityImmunity42 U.S.C. § 1983municipal liabilityqualified immunityofficial policy

Facts

The Eighth Circuit had previously determined that George D. Owen could bring a § 1983 action against the City of Independence and city officials in their official capacities because he had shown that city officials deprived him of constitutional rights in furtherance of official policy. In that earlier decision, however, the court also held that the City was entitled to qualified immunity based on the good faith of its officers. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on that immunity issue and held that municipalities enjoy no immunity under § 1983. The present order addresses the effect of that Supreme Court ruling on the district court's dismissal of Owen's action.

Issue

After the Supreme Court held that municipalities have no immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, whether the district court's dismissal of Owen's action could stand and what further proceedings should follow on remand.

Rule

Municipalities enjoy no immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Where a plaintiff has demonstrated that city officials deprived him of constitutional rights in furtherance of official policy, dismissal based on municipal qualified immunity cannot be sustained.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Columbus, Ohio, the city council adopted a written policy directing the public works department to post employees' disciplinary accusations on a city website before any hearing. Acting under that policy, supervisors posted false accusations about Marcus Hale, who then sued the City of Columbus under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights. The city argues it cannot be liable because the supervisors honestly believed the policy was lawful.

How should the court rule on the city's immunity argument?

Explanation. The governing rule is that municipalities enjoy no immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Where city officials deprived a plaintiff of constitutional rights in furtherance of official policy, dismissal cannot be sustained on the ground that the officers acted in good faith. (Derived from Owen v. City of Independence (n.d.).)