Middle District of Florida Dismisses Monell Claim in Case Involving Acts of Private Violence

Recently Judge Byron issued a lengthy opinion dismissing a civil rights claim in its entirety against the City of Orlando and one of its police officers in the case of Aracena v. Gruler et. al., No. 6:18-cv-9320Orl-40KRS, 2018 WL5961040 *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 14, 2018). The lawsuit arose out of the devastating Pulse nightclub shooting resulting in the death of 49 patrons. Plaintiff, as personal representative of the estate of one of the victims, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the statute enacted by Congress to prevent violations of civil rights by individuals with apparent state law authority. Plaintiff brought one count against the officer for a violation of the victim’s substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining counts were against the City of Orlando. Plaintiff brought a Monell claim against the city for failure to train, stating that the City failed to train their officers “in how to provide adequate security to public places that are highly susceptible to danger, and how to enter and neutralize an active shooter.” The Court found that Plaintiff could not state a claim against the officer because the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated by acts of private violence.

A municipality or agency cannot be held vicariously liable for the constitutional violations committed by their employees. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978). A plaintiff can only recover if there is an underlying constitutional violation and if an action of a municipality or agency’s policy is actually responsible for the violation. Specifically, where a plaintiff brings a claim against a municipality for failure to train the plaintiff must show that “the failure to train its employees in a relevant respect…amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of the person with whom the untrained employees come into contact.” This is a steep burden for the plaintiff and generally requires the plaintiff to prove that there is a pattern of similar violations. While the Supreme Court has contemplated that a municipality may be held liable for failure to train based on a single violation, the Supreme Court stated that such a situation could only occur when the failure to train would obviously result in a violation of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit have yet to find municipal liability in a case involving a single violation. This case is illustrative of the heavy burden placed on Plaintiffs in order to state a Monell claim, even in tragic circumstances.