Summary

Portrait of Stephen Breyer Stephen Breyer Los Angeles County v. Humphries…

The language of §1983 read in light of Monell's understanding of the legislative history explains why claims for prospective relief, like claims for money damages, fall within the scope of the "policy or custom" requirement. Nothing in the text of §1983 suggests that the causation requirement contained in the statute should change with the form of relief sought. In fact, the text suggests the opposite when it provides that a person who meets §1983's
page 8, slip opinion elements "shall be liable...in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stephen Breyer Stephen Breyer Los Angeles County v. Humphries…

In Monell's view Congress may have thought that it lacked the power to impose that kind of indirect liability upon municipalities, id., at 679, but "nothing said in debate on the Sherman amendment would have prevented holding a municipality liable...for its own violations of the Fourteenth Amendment," id., at 683 (emphasis added) . The Court, overruling Monroe, held that municipalities were "persons" under §1983. 436 U.S., at 690.
The Court also concluded that a municipality could not be held liable under §1983 solely because it employed a tortfeasor.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Stephen Breyer Stephen Breyer Los Angeles County v. Humphries…

Los Angeles County denied that it was liable and therefore that it could be held responsible for attorney's fees. It argued that, in respect to the county, the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties. That is because the county is a municipal entity. Under Monell's holding a municipal entity is liable under §1983 only if a municipal "policy or custom" caused a plaintiff to be deprived of a federal right.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature