Skyy v. City of Arlington

What This Case Is About

Michelle Skyy and Sean Valdez, proceeding pro se, sued the City of Arlington under § 1983 after officers entered their home without a warrant or consent, searched their vehicle, arrested Skyy, and held her in jail without adequate food or medical care. The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal because the plaintiffs’ claims were based on respondeat superior—that city employees violated city policies—rather than on a municipal policy or custom that caused the constitutional violations.

The Facts

On April 29, 2015, Skyy and Valdez agreed to divorce. While Skyy was packing to leave, a dispute arose over money on a coffee table and Valdez’s AR-15 rifle. Valdez grabbed Skyy’s arm when she picked up the rifle. After Valdez took the gun inside, Skyy called police. Officers from the Arlington Police Department responded.

After Valdez left the home and was arrested, officers asked both Skyy and Valdez for permission to enter the home—both refused. Without a warrant or consent, APD officers entered the home and searched it. They left warrants on the coffee table but never showed them to the plaintiffs before entering. The officers also entered Skyy’s vehicle without permission and had her Hummer towed.

Skyy was arrested and taken to jail. Despite informing the check-in officer of her medical conditions (Celiac Sprue Disease and Endometriosis) and inability to eat all day, she was never provided food despite two assurances that someone would bring her some. She was kept in a small holding cell for over six hours with no restroom or water, causing severe abdominal pains. She lost six pounds over two days.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of all claims. On the Monell claim, the court held that the plaintiffs fundamentally misconstrued the showing necessary to impose municipal liability. Their argument—that the City should be liable because its officers are directed to follow certain procedures and failed to do so—is a textbook respondeat superior theory, which § 1983 prohibits.

To hold a city liable, a plaintiff must show an official policy or widespread custom that was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Pointing to a single incident involving specific officers, without identifying similar incidents demonstrating a persistent practice, fails to allege a custom. The City’s personnel manual requiring employees to obey the law does not itself create municipal liability when individual officers violate it.

The court also affirmed dismissal of punitive damages against the City under City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., which bars punitive damages against municipalities in § 1983 actions.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

You cannot sue a city just because its employees broke the law. Monell requires more than showing that city employees violated your rights. You must identify a specific municipal policy or widespread custom that caused the violation.

Personnel manual violations are not enough. Showing that officers violated the city’s own rules does not establish municipal liability. In fact, pointing to a policy that forbids the very conduct you complain of actually undermines your Monell claim—it shows the city’s policy was constitutional, and the officers simply didn’t follow it.

Single incidents rarely establish custom. One bad experience with police officers typically cannot establish the “persistent, widespread practice” required to prove a municipal custom. You generally need evidence of similar incidents occurring repeatedly.

No punitive damages against cities. Even if you succeed in proving municipal liability, you cannot recover punitive damages from a municipality under § 1983.

Key Takeaway

If city police officers violate your constitutional rights, holding the city itself liable requires much more than showing the officers broke the rules. You must identify a specific city policy that is itself unconstitutional, or a widespread custom of constitutional violations so pervasive that it effectively represents city policy. Arguing that officers failed to follow their own training manual actually helps the city—it shows the policy was fine, and the failure was individual, not institutional.