Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 92-7728.
Rod GRABOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JACKSON COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, et al., Defendants-
Appellees.
April 9, 1996.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi.
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and KING, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM,
DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA,
DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Before the en banc court is the second appeal by Roderick John
Grabowski of the dismissal of his complaint against Jackson County,
Mississippi, in which he invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming various
violations of his due process rights while a pretrial detainee. He
also challenges the constitutional validity of his convictions for
armed robbery, burglary, and larceny.
In the first appeal a panel of this court affirmed in part and
vacated and remanded in part for consideration of three alleged due
process violations and for a merits disposition of the challenges
to the validity of the convictions.1 On remand the district court
denied habeas corpus relief and referred the section 1983 complaint
to a magistrate judge for a hearing, report, and recommendations.
1Grabowski v. Jackson County Public Defenders Office, 923
F.2d 852 (5th Cir.1991).
1

Following a de novo review the district court dismissed the action
against Jackson County. Grabowski appealed both adverse judgments
and we consolidated the appeals for disposition. A second panel of
this court, by majority opinion, affirmed the rejection of habeas
relief, affirmed in part the dismissal of the section 1983
complaint, and remanded for consideration of Grabowski's allegation
that the defendant had failed to protect him from violence at the
hands of other prisoners.2 The full court took the matter en banc
thus vacating the second panel opinion.
The only defendant before the court is Jackson County,
Mississippi, which is being sued for alleged constitutional
shortcomings in the operation of its governmental institutions, the
county jail and the county defender's office. Grabowski made
allegations and offered some evidence of the omissions and
commissions of several county employees, but on close study the
record leaves no doubt that the only party-defendant herein is
Jackson County.
The familiar doctrine of respondeat superior has no
application in a section 1983 action against a governmental unit
based on the wrongful acts of its employees.3 A municipality or
county can be held accountable to a pretrial detainee for a due
process violation resulting from an employee's acts only if the
2Grabowski v. Jackson County Public Defenders Office, 47
F.3d 1386 (5th Cir.1995).
3Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98
S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).
2

harmful acts resulted from a policy or custom4 "adopted or
maintained with objective deliberate indifference to the detainee's
constitutional rights."5
The record before us contains no showing of the existence of
a policy or custom of Jackson County by virtue of which any
employee, including those identified in the pleadings and other
filings herein, violated Grabowski's constitutional or federally
guaranteed rights. Absent such, there can be no 42 U.S.C. § 1983
liability by Jackson County and the trial court's judgment in favor
of the County is therefore AFFIRMED.
Nor does the record contain sufficient evidence warranting
issuance of the Great Writ, and the trial court's rejection of
habeas corpus relief is also AFFIRMED.

4Id.; Bennett v. City of Slidell, 735 F.2d 861 (5th
Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1016, 105 S.Ct. 3476,
87 L.Ed.2d 612 (1985); Webster v. City of Houston, 735 F.2d 838
(5th Cir.) (en banc), modified on reh'g, 739 F.2d 993 (5th
Cir.1984) (en banc).
5Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633, 649 n. 4 (5th
Cir.1996) (en banc) (emphasis omitted) (citing Farmer v. Brennan,
--- U.S. ----, ----, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1981, 128 L.Ed.2d 811
(1994)).
3