Municipal liability claims under 42 USC § 1983; Monell v Department of Soc Servs; “Failure to screen”; Board of Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty v Brown; Whether the police chief’s failure to adequately screen the defendant-officer’s background “was the moving force” behind the officer’s unconstitutional misconduct that resulted in plaintiff’s injury; Whether plaintiff “abandoned” the appeal where his attorney conceded that the claims were deficient

The court held that plaintiff-Kovalchuk failed to plausibly plead that defendant-City of Decherd's police chief’s failure to adequately screen the defendant-officer’s background “was the moving force” behind the officer’s unconstitutional misconduct that resulted in Kovalchuk’s injury. Thus, it affirmed the dismissal of Kovalchuk’s municipal liability claims under § 1983. An off-duty City police officer pulled over Kovalchuk’s vehicle, displayed his badge, pointed a gun at him, and made him lie on the ground. Kovalchuk subsequently sued the officer and the City. A default judgment was entered against the officer. Only the municipal liability claims against the City for failure to train, supervise, and screen remained. As to the failure to screen claim, Kovalchuk alleged that the City was liable for its failure to adequately check the officer’s references. The district court dismissed the claims. On appeal, the court first noted that at oral argument, “Kovalchuk’s lawyer conceded that the complaint was deficient on all counts[.]” Even so, the court chose to consider the failure to screen claim to highlight why it was not plausibly pled. It explained that under Brown, it is not enough for a municipality to just fail to review an applicant’s background. “‘Only where adequate scrutiny of an applicant’s background would lead a reasonable policymaker to conclude that the plainly obvious consequence of the decision to hire the applicant would be the deprivation of a third party’s federally protected right can the official’s failure to adequately scrutinize the applicant’s background constitute’” the necessary deliberate indifference. And as to “the causation element of deliberate indifference, establishing that a hiring decision would likely result in any constitutional injury is insufficient to impose municipal liability. Instead, the plaintiff must show that ‘this officer was highly likely to inflict the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.’” The main question was whether the police chief’s failure to adequately screen the officer’s background “was the moving force behind” the officer’s unconstitutional misconduct and thus, Kovalchuk’s injury. The “ambiguous allegations” in the complaint, which simply alluded “to negligent hiring by the City, do not establish the necessary causal link for Kovalchuk’s deliberate-indifference claim.”