Los Angeles County v. Humphries
2010 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Los Angeles County v. Humphries?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Los Angeles County v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (2010), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that clarified one of the requirements for imposing liability on a municipality for violations of a federal right, in lawsuits brought under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1983).[1]
Los Angeles County v. Humphries | |
---|---|
Argued October 5, 2010 Decided November 30, 2010 | |
Full case name | Los Angeles County, California v. Craig Arthur Humphries, et al. |
Docket no. | 09–350 |
Citations | 562 U.S. 29 (more) 131 S. Ct. 447; 178 L. Ed. 2d 460 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | Summary judgment granted to defendants, C.D. Cal.; reversed, 554 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2009) |
Holding | |
The requirement that a municipality can only be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983[1] for an injury caused by that municipality's own "policy or custom" applies regardless of whether the plaintiff seeks prospective relief or monetary damages. Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Breyer, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor |
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
The Court had previously ruled in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), that municipalities could only be liable under Section 1983 if the injury was a result of that municipality's "policy or custom."[2] In Los Angeles County v. Humphries, the Court ruled that this "policy or custom" requirement applied regardless of whether the relief the plaintiff sought was monetary or prospective.[3]