Vasquez v. Macias

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 7, 2000
Docket99-41194
StatusUnpublished

This text of Vasquez v. Macias (Vasquez v. Macias) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vasquez v. Macias, (5th Cir. 2000).

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT __________________

No. 99-41194 Summary Calendar _________________

GLORIA VASQUEZ; JUAN ALBERTO GONZALEZ, JR.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

ALBERTO MACIAS; ET AL.,

Defendants,

ALBERTO MACIAS; CITY OF LAREDO,

Defendants-Appellees. _________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (L-97-CV-117) _________________________________________________________________ July 5, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

At issue is a summary judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ 42

U.S.C. § 1983 claim that the City of Laredo was deliberately

indifferent to their constitutional rights through its failure to

require accountability of traffic citations. Appellants claim

further that this failure caused police officer Alberto Macias to

violate Gloria Vasquez’s constitutional rights when he sexually

assaulted her in exchange for destroying traffic citations he

issued her.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. To establish municipal liability under § 1983, a plaintiff

must demonstrate that an official municipal policy or custom caused

the constitutional violation. See Monell v. Department of Soc.

Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 (1978). When a plaintiff

asserts that an inadequate, but constitutional, policy has caused

the constitutional violation, the requisite degree of culpability

that must be shown is deliberate indifference to its possible

unconstitutional consequences. Gonzalez v. Ysleta Indep. Sch.

Dist., 996 F.2d 745, 759 (5th Cir. 1993). Deliberate indifference

requires the municipal actor to have disregarded a known or obvious

consequence of its action. See Board of County Comm’rs of Bryan

County, Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 407 (1997).

Plaintiffs contend: the City had a regulation requiring its

police officers to account for the traffic citations they issued;

the City’s custom was not to enforce this regulation; and its

failure to do so resulted in the violation of Vasquez’s

constitutional rights.

Assuming, without deciding, that the City had an inadequate

custom and policy of accountability for traffic citations, "proof

of an inadequate policy, without more, is insufficient to meet the

threshold requirements of § 1983". Gonzalez, 996 F.2d at 757. A

showing that the inadequate policy was enacted or made with

deliberate indifference to its possible unconstitutional

consequences is also required. Id. at 759.

Plaintiff’s summary judgment evidence was insufficient to

create a genuine issue of material fact about whether the City was

- 2 - deliberately indifferent. The language of the City’s regulation

does not support plaintiffs’ contention that the obvious

consequence of not enforcing it was the deprivation of

Plaintiffs cite no authority that the mere existence of the

regulation means that its enforcement is constitutionally required.

The affidavit submitted Plaintiffs’ expert is conclusional and

does not support their assertion that it would have been obvious

that the likely consequence of failing to account adequately for

citations was sexual assault by its police officers.

The prior incident involving Police Officer Luna was

insufficient to create a genuine issue of deliberate indifference

on the part of the City, because there must be evidence of at least

“a pattern of similar incidents in which citizens were injured or

endangered by intentional or negligent police misconduct and/or

that serious incompetence or misbehavior was general or widespread

throughout the police force”. Languirand v. Hayden, 717 F.2d 220,

227-28 (5th Cir. 1983). See also Snyder v. Trepagnier, 142 F.3d

791, 798 (5th Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED

- 3 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vasquez v. Macias, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vasquez-v-macias-ca5-2000.