Webster v. City of Houston

What This Case Is About

Webster v. City of Houston is a landmark en banc Fifth Circuit decision that defines the framework for municipal liability under § 1983. Arising from a fatal police shooting, the case established the crucial distinction between formal written policies and informal customs or practices and defined what constitutes a “policymaker” for purposes of municipal liability. This decision is one of the most cited cases in Fifth Circuit § 1983 jurisprudence and remains the foundational framework for all municipal liability claims in the circuit.

The Facts

Randy Webster was shot and killed by Houston police officers during an encounter. The circumstances were egregious: when Randy emerged from a van unarmed, Officers Mays and Olin began to hit him and pull his hair. During the scuffle, Officer Mays’s pistol discharged, striking Randy in the head and hand. Randy died from these wounds.

After the shooting, a fellow officer provided Mays with a “throw down weapon” to place next to Randy’s body to make it appear he had been armed. All police officers at the scene who later gave statements falsely declared that Randy was armed. The internal investigation of the shooting conducted by the Houston Police Department exonerated the officers.

Randy’s family sued the City of Houston under § 1983, alleging that the City maintained a custom or policy of condoning excessive force by its officers and covering up police misconduct. The case went to trial, and the jury found the City liable.

What the Court Decided

The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, addressed the fundamental question of what constitutes an “official policy” for purposes of Monell municipal liability. The court established a framework that remains controlling today.

The court held that an “official policy” can take two forms:

1. Formal policy: A policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by the municipality’s lawmaking officers or by an official to whom the lawmakers have delegated policy-making authority.

2. Custom or practice: “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.”

The court also defined who qualifies as a “policymaker”: one who “takes the place of the governing body in a designated area of city administration.” Policymakers “not only govern conduct; they decide the goals for a particular city function and devise the means of achieving those goals … they are not supervised except as to the totality of their performance.”

On proving custom through a pattern, the court established that actions must have occurred “for so long or so frequently that the course of conduct warrants the attribution to the governing body of knowledge that the objectionable conduct is the expected, accepted practice of city employees.”

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

This is the foundational municipal liability framework. Webster’s definitions of “official policy,” “custom,” and “policymaker” are cited in virtually every Fifth Circuit municipal liability case. Understanding this framework is essential for any § 1983 claim against a municipality.

Two paths to municipal liability. You can establish a policy either through (1) a formal written policy or regulation, or (2) evidence of a widespread, persistent practice that is so common it constitutes a de facto policy. Most § 1983 cases rely on the second path.

Pattern evidence is critical. To prove a custom, you need evidence of multiple similar incidents over time—enough to show the governing body knew about and accepted the practice. A single incident is generally insufficient unless it was committed by a final policymaker.

Policymaker identification matters. Not every supervisor is a policymaker. A true policymaker must have final authority over a particular area of government function—they set goals and devise the means of achieving them, with no meaningful supervision of their day-to-day policy decisions.

Cover-ups can demonstrate custom. The evidence that officers planted a weapon and gave false statements—and that the department’s internal investigation exonerated them—supported the jury’s finding that the City had a custom of condoning misconduct.

Key Takeaway

Webster v. City of Houston is the foundational case for municipal liability in the Fifth Circuit. It establishes that a municipality can be held liable under § 1983 not only for formal written policies but also for persistent, widespread customs or practices that are so common and well-settled that they fairly represent municipal policy. For § 1983 plaintiffs, the case provides the roadmap for proving that a city’s tolerance of officer misconduct amounts to official policy.