Rolland Richard HENRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF SHASTA; State of California; Jim Pope, as Sheriff; A.C. Chaidez, Officer; and H. Smith, Officer, Defendants-Appellees

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit1998-03-02No. No. 95-16704

137 F.3d 1372

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for rehearing was denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc was rejected.

This order amends a previously published appellate opinion concerning municipal liability claims. The court clarified that evidence of events occurring after the incidents underlying the plaintiff's claims may be admitted and can be highly probative in establishing whether a municipal defendant maintained a policy or custom of wrongdoing. The court further established that when a county ignores severe constitutional violations by inmates after receiving notice of such violations, a jury may reasonably infer the existence of a prior policy or custom of deliberate indifference. The court denied the petition for rehearing and rejected the suggestion for rehearing before the full court.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Admissibility of post-event evidence to prove municipal policy or custom
Municipal liability based on patterns of deliberate indifference to constitutional violations
Inference of prior policy from a county's continued disregard of known violations

Procedural posture

The court issued this order amending its previously published opinion in response to a petition for rehearing and a suggestion for rehearing en banc.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

ORDER

The opinion, which is reported at 132 F.3d 512 (9th Cir.1997), is amended as follows:

(1) At page 519, second foil paragraph, the first sentence is amended to read: “In holding that the May and Burns declarations may be used to establish municipal liability although the events related therein occurred after the series of incidents that serves as the basis of Henry’s claims, we reiterate our rule that post-event evidence is not only admissible for purposes of proving the existence of a municipal defendant’s policy or custom, but may be highly probative with respect to that inquiry.”

(2) Directly after the citation that follows the sentence in amendment (1), the following sentence is inserted: “When a county continues to turn a blind eye to severe violations of inmates’ constitutional rights—despite having received notice of such violations—a rational fact finder may properly infer the existence of a previous policy or custom of deliberate indifference.”

With these amendments, Judges Booe-hever and Reinhardt have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Reinhardt has voted to rejeet the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judge Boochever so recommends. Judge Rymer has voted to grant the petition for rehearing and to accept the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

The full court has been advised of the en banc suggestion and no judge has requested a vote on it.

The petition for rehearing is DENIED and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is REJECTED.