Laserfiche WebLink
Case 1:07-cv-00251-JMS-LEK Document 42-2 Filed 08/13/2008 Page 9 of 27 <br /> Monell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, <br /> 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Neither can a municipality be held liable "solely because <br /> it employs a tortfeasor." Id. Likewise, a municipality cannot be absolved from <br /> liability because the individual is shielded by absolute immunity. <br /> A municipality can only be held liable for an unconstitutional act of its <br /> police officers which were the: "(1) the direct result of inadequate police training <br /> or supervision; (2) the product of an officially adopted policy statement, ordinance, <br /> regulation, or decision; or (3) illustrative of a custom which is so permanent <br /> and well[-]settled to constitute a custom or usage with the force of law." <br /> Sunn v. City & County of Honolulu, 852 F.Supp. 903, 909 (D.Haw. 1994), citing <br /> Tokuhama v. City and County of Honolulu, 751 F.Supp. 1385, 1389 (D.Haw. <br /> 1989); See, also, Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department, 839 F.2d 621, <br /> 624 (9th Cir. 1988); Carnell v. Grimm, 872 F. Supp. 746, 751 (D. Haw. 1994), <br /> aff'd, 74 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 1995); Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1991) <br /> (if a practice is so permanent and well settled as to constitute a `custom or usage' <br /> with the force of law, a plaintiff may proceed despite the absence of written <br /> authorization or express municipal policy), cent. denied, 112 S.Ct. 640 (1992); <br /> Carnell v. Grimm, 872 F. Supp. 746, 751 (D. Haw. 1994), aff'd, 74 F.3d 977 <br /> 2 <br />