3d Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 4.6.8

63

Last updated March 2026

1

Id. at 408-09. The Court also drew a distinction between inadequate training cases and inadequate 2

screening cases: 3

4

The proffered analogy between failure -to-train cases and inadequate screening 5

cases is not persuasive. In leaving open in Canton the possibility that a plaintiff 6

might succeed in carrying a failure -to-train claim without showing a pattern of 7

constitutional violations, we simply hypothesized that, in a narrow range of 8

circumstances, a violation of federal rights may be a highly predictable 9

consequence of a failure to equip law enforcement officers with specific tools to 10

handle recurring situations. The likelihood that the situation will recur and the 11

predictability that an officer lacking specific tools to handle that situation will 12

violate citizens' rights could justify a finding that policymakers ’ decision not to 13

train the officer reflected “deliberate indifference” to the obvious consequence of 14

the policymakers' choice – namely, a violation of a specific constitutional or 15

statutory right. The high degree of predictability may also support an inference of 16

causation – that the municipality's indifference led directly to the very consequence 17

that was so predictable. 18

19

Where a plaintiff presents a § 1983 claim premised upon the inadequacy of 20

an official's review of a prospective applicant's record, however, there is a particular 21

danger that a municipality will be held liable for an injury not directly caused by a 22

deliberate action attributable to the municipality itself. Every injury suffered at the 23

hands of a municipal employee can be traced to a hiring decision in a "but -for" 24

sense: But for the municipality's decision to hire the employee, the plaintiff would 25

not have suffered the injury. To prevent municipal liability for a hiring decision 26

from collapsing into respondeat superior liability, a court must carefully test the 27

link between the policymaker's inadequate decision and the particular injury 28

alleged. 29

30

Id. at 409-10. Thus, in the inadequate screening context, 31

32

[a] plaintiff must demonstrate that a municipal decision reflects deliberate 33

indifference to the risk that a violation of a particular constitutional or statutory 34

right will follow the decision. Only where adequate scrutiny of an applicant's 35

background would lead a reasonable policymaker to conclude that the plainly 36

obvious consequence of the decision to hire the applicant would be the deprivation 37

of a third party's federally protected right can the official's failure to adequately 38

scrutinize the applicant's background constitute “deliberate indifference.” 39

40