Piotrowski v. City of Houston

What Happened

Barbra Piotrowski was shot and rendered a paraplegic by a hit man procured by her ex-boyfriend, Richard Minns. The evidence connected members of the Houston police and fire departments to Minns and his hired investigator Dudley Bell in acts that harassed and threatened Piotrowski before the shooting. Piotrowski sued the City of Houston under § 1983, alleging Monell liability under multiple theories, and a jury awarded her a judgment of over $20 million. The City appealed.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Jolly, laid out the definitive three-part test for Monell liability that governs all § 1983 municipal liability claims in the Fifth Circuit:

Element 1 — Policy or Custom: The plaintiff must identify either (a) an officially adopted policy, or (b) a “persistent, widespread practice of city officials or employees, which, although not authorized by officially adopted and promulgated policy, is so common and well-settled as to constitute a custom that fairly represents municipal policy.”

Element 2 — Policymaker: The policy or custom must be “fairly attributable to the municipality” through its official policymakers. For official policies, this is straightforward. For customs, the plaintiff must show the policymaker had “actual or constructive knowledge” of the custom — which may be inferred from the “widespread nature” of the practice.

Element 3 — Moving Force: The policy or custom must be the “moving force” behind the constitutional violation. This requires showing that the specific injury was a “closely related consequence” of the custom, not just that the city was generally negligent.

Applying this framework, the Fifth Circuit reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the City, finding that despite the misconduct of several City employees, the evidence did not support municipal liability.

What It Means in Practice

Piotrowski is the case every Fifth Circuit § 1983 plaintiff must know when bringing a Monell claim. The three-part test is cited in virtually every municipal liability case in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Understanding it is essential:

1. “Persistent and widespread” is a demanding standard. A handful of incidents usually isn’t enough. You need to show a pattern of similar violations that is so common that supervisors must have known about it.

2. Constructive knowledge helps. You don’t need a smoking gun memo. If the pattern is widespread enough, courts will infer the policymaker knew.

3. “Moving force” causation is distinct from ordinary tort causation. You must draw a line from the specific policy or custom to your specific injury. A general culture of indifference isn’t enough — you need to show how the custom led to your harm.

The case also clarified the relationship between failure-to-train, failure-to-supervise, and failure-to-discipline theories — all are species of “custom” analysis and must satisfy the same three elements.

How You Can Use It

• Cite for the standard: Piotrowski is the go-to citation for the Monell framework in the Fifth Circuit. Any Monell brief should begin here.
• Pattern evidence: Gather evidence of prior similar incidents — citizen complaints, internal affairs files, prior lawsuits, settlements, DOJ investigations. Each prior incident strengthens the “persistent and widespread” showing.
• Key quote: “A customary municipal policy cannot ordinarily be inferred from single constitutional violations.” 237 F.3d at 581. But “a pattern of conduct so common as to amount to a custom or usage” establishes municipal liability.
• Template: “Under Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 578 (5th Cir. 2001), Plaintiff must show (1) an official policy or widespread practice, (2) a policymaker with actual or constructive knowledge, and (3) a constitutional violation whose moving force was the policy or custom. All three elements are satisfied here because [apply facts].”
• Failure to discipline: If the municipality ignored repeated misconduct by the same officer or unit, argue this constitutes a “custom” of tolerating violations.

How It Can Be Used Against You

• “Isolated incident”: Defendants will argue that your case involves one bad actor, not a systemic problem. A single violation — even a horrific one — does not prove a custom.
• “Moving force” gap: Even if you prove a pattern, defendants will argue the pattern wasn’t the “moving force” behind your injury — that the officer would have acted the same way regardless of training or discipline.
• No official policy: If the city has written policies prohibiting the conduct, defendants will argue there is no “official policy” supporting the violation and that the officer acted against policy.

How to counter: Show that the written policy was contradicted by actual practice. A use-of-force policy on paper means nothing if officers routinely violate it without consequence. Use discovery to obtain the full disciplinary history of the involved officers, the complaint records, and any evidence that supervisors were aware of violations and failed to act. The gap between written policy and actual practice is the custom.