471 U.S. 808 (1985)

CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY
v.
TUTTLE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF TUTTLE

No. 83-1919.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued January 8, 1985 Decided June 3, 1985 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

*810 Burck Bailey argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner.

Carl Hughes argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were J. LeVonne Chambers and Eric Schnapper.^[*]

JUSTICE REHNQUIST announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR joined.

In Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), this Court held that municipalities are "persons" subject to damages liability under § 1 of the Ku Klux Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, for violations of that Act visited by municipal officials. The Court noted, however, that municipal liability could not be premised on the mere fact that the municipality employed the offending official. Instead, we held that municipal liability could only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to government "policy or custom." Id., at 694. We noted at that time that we had "no occasion to address . . . the full contours of municipal immunity under § 1983 . . . ," id., at 695, and expressly left such development "to another day." Today we take a small but necessary step toward defining those contours.

I

On October 4, 1980, Officer Julian Rotramel, a member of the Oklahoma City police force, shot and killed Albert Tuttle outside the We'll Do Club, a bar in Oklahoma City. Officer Rotramel, who had been on the force for 10 months, had *811 responded to an all points bulletin indicating that there was a robbery in progress at the Club. The bulletin, in turn, was the product of an anonymous telephone call. The caller had reported the robbery in progress, and had described the robber and reported that the robber had a gun. The parties stipulated at trial that Tuttle had placed the call.

Rotramel was the first officer to reach the bar, and the testimony concerning what happened thereafter is sharply conflicting. Rotramel's version was that when he entered the bar Tuttle walked toward him, and Rotramel grabbed Tuttle's arm and requested that he stay within the bar. Tuttle matched the description contained in the bulletin. Rotramel proceeded to question the barmaid concerning the reported robbery, but while doing so he once again had to restrain Tuttle from leaving, this time by grabbing Tuttle's arm and holding it. The barmaid testified that she told Rotramel that no robbery had occurred. Rotramel testified that while he was questioning the barmaid Tuttle kept bending towards his boots, and attempting to squirm from the officer's grip. Tuttle finally broke away from Rotramel, and, ignoring the officer's commands to "halt," went outside. When Rotramel cleared the threshold to the outside door, he saw Tuttle crouched down on the sidewalk, with his hands in or near his boot. Rotramel again ordered Tuttle to halt, but when Tuttle started to come out of his crouch Rotramel discharged his weapon. Rotramel testified at trial that he believed Tuttle had removed a gun from his boot, and that his life was in danger. Tuttle died from the gunshot wound. When his boot was removed at the hospital prior to surgery, a toy pistol fell out.

Respondent Rose Marie Tuttle is Albert Tuttle's widow, and the administratrix of his estate. She brought suit under § 1983 in the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, against Rotramel and the city, alleging that their actions had deprived Tuttle of certain of his constitutional rights. At trial respondent introduced evidence concerning the facts surrounding the incident, and also adduced *812 testimony from an expert in police training practices. The expert testified that, based upon Rotramel's conduct during the incident in question and the expert's review of the Oklahoma City police training curriculum, it was his opinion that Rotramel's training was grossly inadequate. Respondent introduced no evidence that Rotramel or any other member of the Oklahoma City police force had been involved in a similar incident.

The case was presented to the jury on the theory that Rotramel's act had deprived Tuttle of life without due process of law, or that he had violated Tuttle's rights by using "excessive force in his apprehension." App. 38. With respect to respondent's suit against Rotramel individually, the jury was charged that Rotramel was entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that he had acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief that his actions were lawful.^[1] Respondent also sought to hold the city liable under Monell, presumably on the theory that a municipal "custom or policy" had led to the constitutional violations. With respect to municipal liability the trial judge instructed the jury:

"If a police officer denies a person his constitutional rights, the city that employs that officer is not liable for such a denial of the right simply because of the employment relationship. . . . But there are circumstances under which a city is liable for a deprivation of a constitutional right. Where the official policy of the city causes an employee of the city to deprive a person of such rights in the execution of that policy, the city may be liable.

.....

"It is the plaintiff's contention that such a policy existed and she relies upon allegations that the city is *813 grossly negligent in training of police officers, in its failure to supervise police officers, and in its failure to review and discipline its officers. The plaintiff has alleged that the failure of the city to adequately supervise, train, review, and discipline the police officers constitutes deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the decedent and acquiescence in the probability of serious police misconduct. . . .

.....

"Absent more evidence of supervisory indifference, such as acquiescence in a prior matter of conduct, official policy such as to impose liability . . . under the federal Civil Rights Act cannot ordinarily be inferred from a single incident of illegality such as a first excessive use of force to stop a suspect; but a single, unusually excessive use of force may be sufficiently out of the ordinary to warrant an inference that it was attributable to inadequate training or supervision amounting to `deliberate indifference' or `gross negligence' on the part of the officials in charge. The city cannot be held liable for simple negligence. Furthermore, the plaintiff must show a causal link between the police misconduct and the adoption of a policy or plan by the defendant municipality." Id., at 42-44. (Emphasis supplied.)

The jury returned a verdict in favor of Rotramel but against the city, and awarded respondent $1,500,000 in damages. The city appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court had improperly instructed the jury on the standard for municipal liability. In particular, petitioner claimed it was error to instruct the jury that a municipality could be held liable for a "policy" of "inadequate training" based merely upon evidence of a single incident of unconstitutional activity. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner's claims. 728 F. 2d 456 (1984).

Viewing the instructions "as a whole," that court first determined that the trial court properly had instructed the *814 jury that proof of "gross negligence" was required to hold the city liable for inadequate training. The court then addressed petitioner's contention that the trial court nevertheless had erred in instructing the jury that petitioner could be held liable based on proof of a single unconstitutional act. It distinguished cases indicating that proof of more than a single incident is required, and decided that where, as here, the act "was so plainly and grossly negligent that it spoke out very positively on the issue of lack of training . . . ," the "single incident rule is not to be considered as an absolute . . . ." Id., at 461. The instruction at issue was therefore "proper." Id., at 459. The court also referred to "independent evidence" of inadequate training, and concluded that the "action, coupled with the clearly inadequate training," was sufficient to justify municipal liability. Id., at 461. We granted certiorari because the Court of Appeals' holding that proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity by a police officer could suffice to establish municipal liability seemed to conflict with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals. 469 U. S. 814 (1984). See, e. g., Languirand v. Hayden, 717 F. 2d 220, 228-230 (CA5 1983); Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F. 2d 932, 936-937 (CA4 1983). But cf. Owens v. Haas, 601 F. 2d 1242, 1246-1247 (CA2 1979).^[2] We reverse.

*815 II

Before proceeding to the merits, we must address respondent's procedural argument that petitioner failed to object at trial to the "single incident" instruction with sufficient specificity to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51, and that therefore the question is not preserved for our review. We disagree. Respondent first referred to the requirements of Rule 51 in one sentence of her brief on the merits in this Court, at which time respondent did not even suggest that the "single incident" question was not preserved. The issue was raised again at oral argument, and respondent has filed a supplemental postargument brief on the question. But respondent's present protests cannot obscure her prior failures. In the Court of Appeals petitioner argued that proof of a single incident of the use of unreasonable force was insufficient to justify municipal liability, and specifically referred to the trial court's single-incident instruction highlighted above. The claim was rejected on the merits, and the Court of Appeals' opinion does not even mention the requirements of Rule 51, so it seems clear that respondent did not refer to the Rule below. The petition for certiorari again centered on the single-incident issue, but respondent's brief in opposition did not hint that the "questions presented" might not be properly preserved. Respondent's attempt to avoid the question now comes far too late.

We do not mean to give short shrift to the provisions of Rule 51. Indeed, respondent's argument might have prevailed had it been made to the Court of Appeals.^[3] But we do not think that judicial economy is served by invoking the *816 Rule at this point, after we have granted certiorari and the case has received plenary consideration on the merits. Our decision to grant certiorari represents a commitment of scarce judicial resources with a view to deciding the merits of one or more of the questions presented in the petition. Nonjurisdictional defects of this sort should be brought to our attention no later than in respondent's brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari; if not, we consider it within our discretion to deem the defect waived. Here we granted certiorari to review an issue squarely presented to and decided by the Court of Appeals, and we will proceed to decide it. Cf. On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747, 749-750, n. 3 (1952).

III

Respondent's lawsuit is brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Although this Court has decided a host of cases under this statute in recent years, it can never hurt to embark on statutory construction with the Act's precise language in mind. The statute states:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. . . ."

By its terms, of course, the statute creates no substantive rights; it merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137, 140, 144, n. 3 (1979). Here respondent's claim is that her husband was deprived of his life "without due process of law," in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, or that he was deprived of his right to be free from the use of "excessive force in his apprehension" — presumably a right secured by *817 the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.^[4] Having established a deprivation of a constitutional right, however, respondent still must establish that the city was the "person" who "cause[d] [Tuttle] to be subjected" to the deprivation. Monell teaches that the city may only be held accountable if the deprivation was the result of municipal "custom or policy."

In Monell, the plaintiffs challenged the defendant's policy of compelling pregnant employees to take unpaid sick leave before such leave was necessary for medical reasons, on the ground that the policy violated the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the defendant was a municipal entity, this Court first addressed whether such an entity was a suable "person" as that term is used in § 1983. The Court's analysis focused on § 1983's legislative history, and in particular on the debate surrounding the proposed "Sherman amendment" to the 1871 Ku Klux Act, from which § 1983 is derived. The Sherman amendment would have held municipalities responsible for damage to person or property caused by private persons "riotously and tumultuously assembled." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 749 (1871). Congress' refusal to adopt this *818 amendment, and the reasons given, were the basis for this Court's holding in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187-192 (1961), that municipalities were not suable "persons" under § 1983; a more extensive analysis of the Act's legislative history led this Court in Monell to overrule that part of Monroe. The principal objections to the Sherman amendment voiced in the 42d Congress were that the section appeared to impose a federal obligation to keep the peace — a requirement the Congressmen thought was of doubtful constitutionality, but which in any event seemed to place the municipalities in the position of insurers for harms suffered within their borders. The Monell Court found that these concerns, although fatal to the Sherman amendment, were nevertheless consistent with holding a municipality liable "for its own violations of the Fourteenth Amendment." Monell, 436 U. S., at 683 (emphasis supplied).

Having determined that municipalities were suable "persons," the Monell Court went on to discuss the circumstances under which municipal liability could be imposed. The Court's holding that a city could not be held liable under § 1983 based upon theories akin to respondeat superior was based in part upon the language of the statute, and in part upon the rejection of the proposed Sherman amendment mentioned above. The Court noted that § 1983 only imposes liability for deprivations "cause[d]" by a particular defendant, and that it was hard to find such causation where liability is imposed merely because of an employment relationship. It also considered Congress' rejection of the Sherman amendment to be telling evidence that municipal liability should not be imposed when the municipality was not itself at fault. Given this legislative history, the Monell Court held that only deprivations visited pursuant to municipal "custom" or "policy" could lead to municipal liability. This language tracks the language of the statute; it also provides a fault-based analysis for imposing municipal liability.^[5]

*819 The Monell Court went on to hold that the sick-leave policy at issue was "unquestionably" "the moving force of the constitutional violation found by the District Court," and that it therefore had "no occasion to address . . . what the full contours *820 of municipal liability may be." Id., at 694-695. Subsequent decisions of this Court have added little to the Monell Court's formulation, beyond reaffirming that the municipal policy must be "the moving force of the constitutional violation." Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U. S. 312, 326 (1981). Cases construing Monell in the Courts of Appeals, however, have served to highlight the full range of questions, and subtle factual distinctions, that arise in administering the "policy" or "custom" standard. See, e. g., Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F. 2d 762 (CA5 1984); Gilmere v. City of Atlanta, 737 F. 2d 894 (CA11 1984), reheard en banc, January 1985; Languirand, 717 F. 2d, at 220.

With the development of municipal liability under § 1983 in this somewhat sketchy state, we turn to examine the basis upon which respondent seeks to have liability imposed upon the city. Respondent did not claim in the District Court that Oklahoma City had a "custom" or "policy" of authorizing its police force to use excessive force in the apprehension of suspected criminals, and the jury was not instructed on that theory of municipal liability. Rather, respondent's theory of liability was that the "policy" in question was the city's policy of training and supervising police officers, and that this "policy" resulted in inadequate training, and the constitutional violations alleged. Respondent in her brief says:

"Respondent offered direct evidence that the shooting was caused by municipal policies. The officer who shot Tuttle testified that city training policies were inadequate and had led to Tuttle's death. The official who was Chief of Police when Tuttle was shot insisted that the shooting was entirely consistent with city policy." Brief for Respondent 13-14.

The District Court apparently accepted this theory of liability, though it charged the jury that the city's "policymakers" could not merely have been "negligent" in establishing training policies, but that they must have been guilty of *821 "gross negligence" or "deliberate indifference" to the "police misconduct" that they could thus engender.

Respondent then proceeds to argue that the question presented by petitioner — whether a single isolated incident of the use of excessive force by a police officer establishes an official custom or policy of a municipality — is in truth not presented by this record because there was more evidence of an official "policy" of "inadequate training" than might be inferred from the incident giving rise to Tuttle's death. But unfortunately for respondent, the instruction given by the District Court allowed the jury to impose liability on the basis of such a single incident without the benefit of the additional evidence. The trial court stated that the jury could "infer," from "a single, unusually excessive use of force . . . that it was attributable to inadequate training or supervision amounting to `deliberate indifference' or `gross negligence' on the part of the officials in charge." App. 44.

We think this inference unwarranted; first, in its assumption that the act at issue arose from inadequate training, and second, in its further assumption concerning the state of mind of the municipal policymakers. But more importantly, the inference allows a § 1983 plaintiff to establish municipal liability without submitting proof of a single action taken by a municipal policymaker. The foregoing discussion of the origins of Monell's "policy or custom" requirement should make clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. Presumably, here the jury could draw the stated inference even in the face of uncontradicted evidence that the municipality scrutinized each police applicant and met the highest training standards imaginable. To impose liability under those circumstances would be to impose it simply because the municipality hired one "bad apple."

The fact that in this case respondent introduced independent evidence of inadequate training makes no difference, because *822 the instruction allowed the jury to impose liability even if it did not believe respondent's expert at all. Nor can we read this charge "as a whole" to avoid the difficulty. There is nothing elsewhere in this charge that would detract from the jury's perception that it could impose liability based solely on this single incident. Indeed, that was the intent of the charge, and that is what the Court of Appeals held in upholding it. The Court of Appeals' references to "independent evidence" in portions of its opinion are thus irrelevant; the general verdict yields no opportunity for determining whether liability was premised on the independent evidence, or solely on the inference sanctioned by the instruction. Cf. Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 367-368 (1931).

Respondent contends that Monell suggests the contrary result, because it "expressly provided that an official `decision' would suffice to establish liability, although a single decision will often have only a single victim." App. 14. But this very contention illustrates the wide difference between the municipal "policy" at issue in Monell and the "policy" alleged here. The "policy" of the New York City Department of Social Services that was challenged in Monell was a policy that by its terms compelled pregnant employees to take mandatory leaves of absence before such leaves were required for medical reasons; this policy in and of itself violated the constitutional rights of pregnant employees by reason of our decision in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632 (1974). Obviously, it requires only one application of a policy such as this to satisfy fully Monell's requirement that a municipal corporation be held liable only for constitutional violations resulting from the municipality's official policy.

Here, however, the "policy" that respondent seeks to rely upon is far more nebulous, and a good deal further removed from the constitutional violation, than was the policy in Monell. To establish the constitutional violation in Monell no evidence was needed other than a statement of the policy *823 by the municipal corporation, and its exercise; but the type of "policy" upon which respondent relies, and its causal relation to the alleged constitutional violation, are not susceptible to such easy proof. In the first place, the word "policy" generally implies a course of action consciously chosen from among various alternatives;^[6] it is therefore difficult in one sense even to accept the submission that someone pursues a "policy" of "inadequate training," unless evidence be adduced which proves that the inadequacies resulted from conscious choice — that is, proof that the policymakers deliberately chose a training program which would prove inadequate. And in the second place, some limitation must be placed on establishing municipal liability through policies that are not themselves unconstitutional, or the test set out in Monell will become a dead letter. Obviously, if one retreats far enough from a constitutional violation some municipal "policy" can be identified behind almost any such harm inflicted by a municipal official; for example, Rotramel would never have killed Tuttle if Oklahoma City did not have a "policy" of establishing a police force. But Monell must be taken to require proof of a city policy different in kind from this latter example before a claim can be sent to a jury on the theory that a particular violation was "caused" by the municipal "policy." At the very least there must be an affirmative link between the policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.

Here the instructions allowed the jury to infer a thoroughly nebulous "policy" of "inadequate training" on the part of the municipal corporation from the single incident described earlier in this opinion, and at the same time sanctioned the inference that the "policy" was the cause of the incident. Such an approach provides a means for circumventing Monell's limitations altogether. Proof of a single *824A incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy, which policy can be attributed to a municipal policymaker. Otherwise the existence of the unconstitutional policy, and its origin, must be separately proved. But where the policy relied upon is not itself unconstitutional, considerably more proof than the single incident will be necessary in every case to establish both the requisite fault on the part of the municipality,^[7] and the causal connection between the "policy" and the constitutional deprivation.^[8] Under the charge upheld by the Court of Appeals the jury could properly have imposed liability on the city based solely upon proof that it employed a nonpolicymaking officer who violated the Constitution. The decision of the Court of Appeals is accordingly

Reversed.

JUSTICE POWELL took no part in the decision of this case.

*824B JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom JUSTICE MARSHALL and JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I agree that the "single incident" instruction, ante, at 813, is properly before us and therefore join Part II of JUSTICE *825 REHNQUIST'S opinion. Although I concur in the judgment reached by the Court today, I am unable to join the balance of the plurality opinion.

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), held that municipalities, like other state actors, are subject to liability under § 1983 when their policies "subjec[t], or caus[e] to be subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution . . . ." 42 U. S. C. § 1983. I agree with the plurality that today we must take a "small but necessary step," ante, at 810, toward defining the full contours of municipal liability pursuant to § 1983.^[1] However, because I believe that the plurality opinion needlessly complicates this task and in the process unsettles more than it clarifies, I write separately to suggest a simpler explanation of our result.

I

Given the result in this case, in which a jury verdict in favor of the respondent is overturned, it is useful to keep in mind respondent's theory of the case. Respondent introduced two types of evidence at trial. First, respondent elicited testimony concerning the circumstances surrounding Tuttle's killing. This included Rotramel's admission that he never saw a weapon in Tuttle's possession, App. 150, 158, 225, and evidence that there was no reasonable ground to believe that Tuttle had committed a felony. Id., at 155.^[2]*826 It also included evidence that Rotramel made no effort to employ alternative measures to apprehend Tuttle, id., at 225-226. Second, respondent introduced substantial direct evidence concerning what she alleged to be the city's grossly inadequate policies of training and supervising police officers. An expert testified that Rotramel's training included only 24 minutes of instruction in how to answer calls concerning a robbery in progress, although "these are statistically one of the most dangerous calls that an officer has to handle." Id., at 288. In addition, there was evidence that Rotramel had little or no training in when or how to enter a "blind" building with an armed robbery in progress and whether to wait for a backup unit to arrive. Id., at 146-147. Finally, Rotramel himself seemed to believe that he had been inadequately trained. Id., at 153, 159, 165.

Respondent thus attempted in two ways to show the city's responsibility for the killing of Tuttle. First, respondent proposed to prove that Rotramel's killing of Tuttle was so egregiously out of accord with accepted police practice that the jury could infer from the killing alone that the city's policies and customs concerning the training of police were grossly deficient and were to blame for the incident. Second, respondent hoped to prove the policy or custom of inadequate training by means of direct evidence of the scope and nature of that training.

The trial court permitted respondent to submit both theories to the jury. The jury was instructed that "a single, unusually excessive use of force may be sufficiently out of the ordinary to warrant an inference that it was attributable to inadequate training or supervision amounting to `deliberate indifference' or `gross negligence' on the part of the officials in charge." Id., at 44. The court had previously instructed that "deliberate indifference" or "gross negligence" on the part of the city was sufficient to prove the existence of a city policy. Id., at 43. Putting these instructions together, the *827 jury could infer solely from evidence concerning the conduct of a single policeman on a single night that the city was liable under § 1983. As for the second theory, the jury was instructed that the city could be held liable "only if an official policy which results in constitutional deprivations can be inferred from acts or omissions of supervisory city officials and if that policy was a proximate cause of the denial of the civil rights of the decedent." Ibid.

Having been thus instructed, the jury returned a verdict against the city. There is no way to determine on which theory the jury relied. The trial court denied petitioner's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, holding that "the plaintiff brought forward sufficient evidence regarding inadequate training and procedures to warrant submission to the jury of the issue of municipal liability." Id., at 58. The court believed that "there was considerably more evidence presented here than the fact that [Rotramel], a young man, shot someone in deprivation of their civil rights." Tr. 704. In discussing petitioner's judgment n.o.v. motion, the court explicitly noted that it was "impressed with the evidence that was presented in this case" concerning "the curriculum methods and the lack of supervision and training." Id., at 704-705. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 728 F. 2d 456 (CA10 1984).

The question presented in the petition for certiorari is "[w]hether a single isolated incident of the use of excessive force by a police officer establishes an official policy or practice of a municipality sufficient to render the municipality liable for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983." The thrust of petitioner's argument is that it was improper to instruct the jury that it could impose liability on petitioner based solely on evidence regarding Rotramel's actions on the night of Tuttle's killing.

II

A

Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), held that "Congress did intend municipalities *828 and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies." Id., at 690 (emphasis in original). Nonetheless, we recognized certain limits on the theories of liability that could be asserted against a municipality. As the plurality correctly notes, ante, at 817-818, our reading in Monell of the legislative history of § 1983, including its rejection of the Sherman amendment, see 436 U. S., at 664-704, led us to conclude that Congress desired not to subject municipalities to liability "without regard to whether a local government was in any way at fault for the breach of the peace for which it was to be held for damages." Id., at 681, n. 40. We therefore concluded that a city could not be held liable under a vicarious liability or respondeat superior theory in a § 1983 suit, for such liability would violate the evident congressional intent to preclude municipal liability in cases in which the city itself was not at fault.

Because Congress intended that § 1983 be broadly available to compensate individuals for violations of constitutional rights, see Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 650-653 (1980); Monell, supra, at 683-687, a municipality could be held liable where a plaintiff could show that it was the city itself that was at fault for the damage suffered. To make this showing, a plaintiff must prove, in the broad causal language of the statute, that a policy or custom of the city "subjected" him, or "caused him to be subjected" to the deprivation of constitutional rights. In a case in which the plaintiff carries this burden, the city's liability would be mandated by the language, the legislative history, and the underlying purposes of § 1983.

B

I agree with the plurality that it is useful to begin with the terms of the statute:

"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . , subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction *829 thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law . . . ."

In the language of the statute, the elements of a § 1983 cause of action might be summarized as follows: The plaintiff must prove that (1) a person (2) acting under color of state law (3) subjected the plaintiff or caused the plaintiff to be subjected (4) to the deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Element (4) involves the question of whether there has been a violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States; that issue is not raised by the parties in this case and thus may be ignored here.

Of the three remaining elements of a § 1983 cause of action of relevance here, respondent clearly established two. After Monell, a municipality like Oklahoma City undoubtedly is a "person" to whom § 1983 applies. And there can be little doubt that the city's actions establishing particular police training procedures were actions taken "under color of state law," as that term is commonly understood.

The remaining question is causation. In a § 1983 case involving a municipal defendant, the causation element to be proved by the plaintiff may be seen as divided into two parts. First, the plaintiff must predicate his recovery on some particular action taken by the city, as opposed to an action taken unilaterally by a nonpolicymaking municipal employee. This is the inquiry required by Monell, and the plaintiff would carry his burden by proving the existence of a particular official municipal policy or established custom.^[3] In this case, the municipal policies involved were the set of procedures for training and supervising police officers.^[4] Second, the plaintiff *830 must prove that this policy or custom "subjected" or "caused him to be subjected" to a deprivation of a constitutional right.

The instruction in question in this case permitted the plaintiff to carry his burden of proving "policy or custom" by merely introducing evidence concerning the particular actions taken by Rotramel on the night of October 4, 1980.^[5] To isolate the defect in this instruction, it is useful to assume that the jury disbelieved Rotramel's testimony concerning the inadequacy of his training, rejected the evidence presented by respondent's expert concerning the content of the city's police training and supervision practices, and found unconvincing all of respondent's independent and documentary evidence concerning those practices. While perhaps unlikely, such disbelief must be assumed to test an instruction that might have permitted liability without any such evidence. Under the instruction in question, the jury could have found the city liable solely because Rotramel's actions on the night in question were so excessive and out of the ordinary.

A jury finding of liability based on this theory would unduly threaten petitioner's immunity from respondeat superior liability. A single police officer may grossly, outrageously, and recklessly misbehave in the course of a single incident. Such misbehavior may in a given case be fairly *831 attributable to various municipal policies or customs, either those that authorized the police officer so to act or those that did not authorize but nonetheless were the "moving force," Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U. S. 312, 326 (1981), or cause of the violation. In such a case, the city would be at fault for the constitutional violation. Yet it is equally likely that the misbehavior was attributable to numerous other factors for which the city may not be responsible; the police officer's own unbalanced mental state is the most obvious example. Cf. Brandon v. Holt, 469 U. S. 464, 466 (1985). In such a case, the city itself may well not bear any part of the fault for the incident; there may have been nothing that the city could have done to avoid it. Thus, without some evidence of municipal policy or custom independent of the police officer's misconduct, there is no way of knowing whether the city is at fault. To infer the existence of a city policy from the isolated misconduct of a single, low-level officer, and then to hold the city liable on the basis of that policy, would amount to permitting precisely the theory of strict respondeat superior liability rejected in