A claim against a Michigan city or county depends on whose decision caused the harm, and on suing the entity that the law allows you to sue
I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids civil rights lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years. This page covers lawsuits against Michigan cities, villages, townships, counties, sheriffs and school districts under section 1983: which entity to name, how a government’s own decision is traced to the harm, what records I collect before filing, and what a case against the government can seek. I represent the person who was harmed. I tell you where a claim against the government is weak, and I do not promise outcomes.
The short answer. A city or county is liable under section 1983 for its own policy or custom, and not just because it employs the person who violated your rights. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). The usual defendant is the city, village or county that runs the police department or jail, not the department itself. A single decision can be enough when it is made by an official who has final authority over the subject. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 480-481 (1986). A court can order a local government to stop enforcing an unconstitutional rule, and a prevailing plaintiff may seek attorney fees, but a municipality is immune from punitive damages. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981); 42 U.S.C. 1988(b). The State of Michigan and its officials sued in their official capacities are not persons under section 1983. Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). Nothing here predicts how a case will end.
A claim against the officer and a claim against the government are different claims. The officer’s claim asks what the officer did. The government’s claim asks what the government itself decided, tolerated or failed to do, and it has its own proof. That is why I treat the municipal claim as a separate case inside the lawsuit, with its own documents and its own witnesses, and why I begin collecting those documents before anything is filed.
Section 1983 makes liable every person who, under color of state law, subjects a person to a deprivation of constitutional rights, in an action at law, a suit in equity or another proper proceeding for redress. 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court held in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) that local governing bodies can be sued directly for monetary, declaratory or injunctive relief where the action alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers. Everything else on this page is about how that rule is applied to a real set of facts.
Ways to tie a city or county to the violation
A government’s liability is proved through one of a handful of routes. The table lists the ones I evaluate, the proof each one needs and the authority behind it. Which route fits depends on the facts and on what the records show.
| Route | What has to be shown | Proof I look for | Authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official policy or enactment | The unconstitutional action implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation or decision officially adopted by the governing body’s officers | The ordinance, resolution, written directive or manual, and the incident report showing it was followed | Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) |
| Decision by a final policymaker | One decision by an official with final authority over the subject can be the government’s own act; who holds that authority is decided under state law | Charter, ordinances, statutes, board minutes, and the order, email or directive the official issued | Pembaur, 475 U.S. 469, 480-481 (1986); City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 124, 127 (1988); Jett v. Dallas Independent School District, 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989) |
| Ratification by failing to investigate | An inadequate investigation in this case and a clear and persistent pattern of inadequate investigations of comparable claims | Internal affairs files, complaint logs with the facts of each complaint, discipline records | Pineda v. Hamilton County, 977 F.3d 483, 494-495 (6th Cir. 2020); Hart v. City of Grand Rapids, 138 F.4th 409 (6th Cir. 2025) |
| Custom of tolerance | A government can be sued for a custom as well as a written policy | Earlier incidents, complaints, lawsuits and witnesses who describe the same practice | Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690-691 (1978); Hart, 138 F.4th 409 (6th Cir. 2025) |
| Failure to train | A deficiency in the training program that is closely related to the ultimate injury | Training curriculum and attendance records, policy manuals, and the training given on the subject at issue | City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 391 (1989) |
| Hiring | Adequate scrutiny of the applicant’s background would lead a reasonable policymaker to conclude that the plainly obvious consequence of hiring was the deprivation of a federally protected right | The hiring file, background investigation, prior discipline and prior complaints | Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 411-412 (1997) |
Two points apply to every row. The government is not liable under section 1983 simply because it employs the person who acted. Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). And a municipal claim needs an underlying constitutional violation: if the individual officer committed none, the fact that departmental regulations might have authorized excessive force is beside the point. City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (per curiam).
Choosing the defendant: the department, the city, the sheriff or the county
Who you sue is a legal question with practical consequences. If the wrong entity is named, the right one may not be before the court when the clock matters. For a party that is not an individual or a corporation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure look to the law of the state where the court is located to decide whether it can be sued. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)(3). The Sixth Circuit, in a Tennessee case, treated the county as the proper party after concluding that a police department was not an entity that could be sued. Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994). I therefore start from the entity that holds the power: the city, village or township that operates a police department, or the county that operates a sheriff’s office and jail.
Michigan’s governmental tort liability act gives me a checklist of local bodies. It defines a political subdivision to include a municipal corporation, county, county road commission, school district, community college district, port district, metropolitan district or transportation authority, and an agency, department, court, board or council of a political subdivision. MCL 691.1401(e). That definition is written for the state act, and whether a particular body can be sued under section 1983 is a separate question. I use the list to make sure I have asked who operated the program, who employed the people involved and who paid for the equipment or contract. A claim against a private company that ran a service for the government is a different analysis, and I do not assume the government’s answer carries over.
The State is on the other side of the line. Section 1983 reaches local governments that are not part of the State, and neither the State nor its officials acting in their official capacities are persons under the statute. Will, 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). A claim for damages against a state department or the Michigan State Police fails on that ground, so when a state agency is involved I look at the individual defendants and at the separate rules for claims against the State.
Sheriffs, deputies and the county jail
Michigan statutes assign the sheriff specific duties. The sheriff has the charge and custody of the jails of the county and of the prisoners in them, and keeps them personally or through a deputy or jailer. MCL 51.75. A statute on deputies says that a sheriff “shall not be responsible for the acts, defaults, and misconduct in office of a deputy sheriff.” MCL 51.70. That is a statement about responsibility under state law. Whether a sheriff or county is liable under section 1983 is decided under the federal rules in the table, and I read both statutes before I decide whom to name.
In a case about a Michigan county jail, the Sixth Circuit noted that there was no dispute that under state law the sheriff enjoyed final policymaking authority over the correctional facility. Miller v. Calhoun County, 408 F.3d 803, 814 (6th Cir. 2005). Because that point was conceded, I treat it as an example of how the question is approached, not as a rule for every subject a sheriff touches. For a jail claim I ask who made the decision at issue, whether the sheriff, a jail administrator or a contractor, and what authority the statutes, the county board and the sheriff’s own written policies gave that person.
Finding the final policymaker
The Supreme Court has said that the identification of policymaking officials is a question of state law, and that identifying the officials whose decisions represent the official policy of the local governmental unit is a legal question for the trial judge. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. 112, 124 (1988) (plurality); Jett, 491 U.S. 701, 737 (1989). An official whose discretionary decisions are constrained by policies not of that official’s making is not the final policymaker on the point. Praprotnik, 485 U.S. at 127. Because the judge decides it, the issue can be raised early by motion, so I gather the sources of authority before I file.
For a city, those sources are the charter, the ordinances, the council or commission resolutions, the budget, any personnel rules and the written policies of the department. For a county, they are the statutes, the board of commissioners’ resolutions and the sheriff’s policies. For a school district, they are the board’s policies and the minutes of its meetings. A title on a business card settles nothing. What matters is where the power to decide that subject was placed, and whether anyone above the official could change the decision.
Getting the government’s records before suing
Municipal liability is proved with the government’s own paper, so I usually begin with a request under Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. Except as the act expressly provides, a person who gives a public body’s FOIA coordinator a written request that describes a public record sufficiently to enable the public body to find it has a right to inspect, copy or receive copies of the record. MCL 15.233(1). The act does not require a public body to make a compilation, summary or report of information or to create a new public record, so the request has to ask for records that exist. MCL 15.233(4), (5).
The timing is set by statute. Unless the requester agrees otherwise, the public body must respond within 5 business days by granting the request, denying it in writing, granting it in part and denying it in part, or issuing one notice extending the response period for not more than 10 business days. MCL 15.235(2). A written denial must explain the basis for the denial, certify that a record does not exist if that is the reason, describe anything separated or deleted, and explain the right to appeal to the head of the public body or to sue. MCL 15.235(5), (8). If a court finds that the public body did not comply and orders disclosure, damages can be assessed against it. MCL 15.235(4).
The records I ask for depend on the route. For a policy claim I ask for the ordinance, directive or manual in force on the date of the incident. For a ratification or custom claim I ask for complaint logs, internal affairs files and discipline records for comparable incidents. For a training claim I ask for the curriculum and the officer’s training file. For a hiring claim I ask for the application and background file. In Hart v. City of Grand Rapids, 138 F.4th 409 (6th Cir. 2025), a spreadsheet of nearly 90 force complaints was not enough because its entries did not describe the events or the investigations, which is why I ask for the underlying files and not a summary list. FOIA has exemptions, and a public body may withhold or redact. A denial is not the end of the question, and discovery after filing can reach records that a request did not.
Where an injunction fits, and what a city cannot be ordered to pay
A lawsuit over a written rule can ask for an order and not just money. The text of section 1983 does not limit relief to damages, and Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978) allows declaratory and injunctive relief against a local governing body whose adopted policy causes the violation. A prevailing plaintiff may seek a reasonable attorney’s fee under 42 U.S.C. 1988(b) even when the relief is an order and not a judgment for money. The limit is punitive damages, which a municipality is immune from under section 1983. City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981). Money recovered from the government itself is compensatory. I explain that early, because it affects what a case against the government is worth and why some claims are brought mainly to change a practice.
Defenses I expect the city or county to raise
I expect the government to argue that the department it named is not a suable entity, that the plaintiff has identified no policy or custom, that the official who acted was not the final policymaker, that one incident does not make a pattern, that the officer committed no constitutional violation so there is nothing to attribute to the government, and that the State and state agencies are not persons under the statute. For state-law counts joined to the same case, I also expect the immunity that the governmental tort liability act gives a governmental agency engaged in a governmental function, subject to the exceptions in the act. MCL 691.1407(1). The Michigan period borrowed for section 1983 is three years under MCL 600.5805(2). Wolfe v. Perry, 412 F.3d 707, 714 (6th Cir. 2005). I read the government’s answer against the records and tell you which of these points looks strong.
How I handle a claim against a city or county
- Identify every entity and official. I list the city or county, the department, the officers and supervisors, any contractor, and any state agency, and I decide which can be sued in which capacity.
- Preserve and request the records. I send a preservation letter for video, dispatch and incident records and make FOIA requests tailored to the route I am evaluating.
- Find who made the decision. I trace the decision to a person and then to the charter, statute, ordinance or policy that gave that person authority.
- Look for the pattern. I review earlier complaints, claims and lawsuits and the files that show how the government responded to them.
- Match the claim to the evidence. I plead the routes the records support and leave out the ones they do not.
- Calendar the dates. I fix the three-year period for the federal claim and the shorter dates for any state-law claim before anything else is filed.
- Prepare for the early motions. Capacity, policymaker status and the underlying violation are the usual targets, so I build that record from the start.
What I need from you
Bring every paper from the incident: reports, citations, charging papers, medical records, photographs and any letters from the city, county or an insurer. Write down the date, time and place, the names or badge numbers of those involved, what each person said and did, and who watched. Tell me whether you have made a complaint to the department or the sheriff, and bring the response. If you know of other people who had a similar experience with the same department or jail, tell me who they are. Tell me about any criminal case that is open or that ended. Keep your own video and messages, do not post about the incident, and do not sign anything from an insurer or a government body until we have talked.
Where your Kent County claim against a city or county will be heard
I represent clients in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. A section 1983 claim arising in Kent County can be filed in the Kent County Circuit Court, which is the 17th Judicial Circuit. MCL 600.518. A claim that arises under federal law may also be filed in a federal district court. Federal venue lies in a district where any defendant resides, if all defendants reside in the same state, or where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred. 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1)-(2). I decide with you where to file after I review the defendants, the claims and the deadlines.
Why people hire me for a claim against a city or county
You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I tell you what the government will say and what records I need to answer it. I explain the strengths and weaknesses of the claim plainly, including when the individual claim is stronger than the claim against the government, and then we decide together how to proceed.
Fees depend on the claim, its complexity and whether the case is likely to go to trial. I explain my fee arrangement at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.
Questions I hear from people who want to sue a Michigan city or county
When I sue over police misconduct in Michigan, do I name the police department or the city?
The city or county that runs the department, along with the individual officers. Federal courts in Michigan have said that municipal agencies of Michigan cities, such as a police department, are not legally distinct entities that can be sued under Section 1983, and the Sixth Circuit has treated the county as the proper party in place of a sheriff's department. The Supreme Court has held that a local government itself is a suable person under Section 1983.
Can a single decision by a city or county official make the government liable, or does a pattern always have to be shown?
A single decision can be enough when it is made by an official who has final authority to set the government's policy on that subject. The Supreme Court has held that municipal liability may be imposed for a single decision by municipal policymakers under appropriate circumstances. A mistake by an ordinary employee, or a departure from policy set by someone else, does not qualify, and a custom claim does need a pattern.
How does a court decide which Michigan official is a city's or county's final policymaker?
It is a question of state law, and the judge decides it, based on the authority that state and local law give the official over the subject involved. Michigan statutes give the sheriff charge and custody of the county jail, and in a Calhoun County case the Sixth Circuit noted that it was undisputed that the sheriff held final policymaking authority over the jail. An official whose choices are limited by policies set by others generally is not the final policymaker.
Can a Michigan city be liable because it failed to investigate or discipline an officer after the incident?
Sometimes, but one poor investigation is not enough. In the Sixth Circuit, a claim that a city ratified misconduct by failing to investigate generally needs an inadequate investigation in the plaintiff's case and also a clear and persistent pattern of inadequate investigations of comparable complaints. In a 2025 Grand Rapids case, a spreadsheet of nearly 90 force complaints, almost all ending in exoneration, was not enough without some detail showing the complaints were well founded and mishandled.
If the officer wins on qualified immunity or the jury finds no violation, is the case against the city over?
Not always. A qualified immunity dismissal of the officer does not mean that no constitutional violation occurred, so the city may still be liable if its policy or custom caused the violation. But if the officer did not commit a constitutional violation at all, the city cannot be held liable for it, even if a city policy might have authorized excessive force.
Can a Michigan city or county be liable for hiring an officer who had a record of misconduct?
Only in narrow cases. Under Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County v Brown, a single hiring decision supports liability only where adequate scrutiny of the applicant's background would lead a reasonable policymaker to conclude that the plainly obvious consequence of hiring was the deprivation of a federally protected right. The hiring decision must also be the moving force behind the injury, and the link between the applicant's background and the violation must be strong.
Can I ask a court to stop a Michigan city or county policy or ordinance, or only to award money damages?
Both are available. Section 1983 authorizes an action at law, a suit in equity, or another proper proceeding for redress, and the Supreme Court held in Monell that local governing bodies can be sued for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where the challenged action implements or executes an officially adopted policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision. A prevailing plaintiff may be awarded a reasonable attorney's fee, but a city is immune from punitive damages.
Can I sue a Michigan school district or other local board under Section 1983, or are they treated like the State?
Local governments such as cities, counties and local school boards can be sued under Section 1983, subject to the Monell policy or custom rule. The State and its agencies cannot be sued for damages under Section 1983, because they are not persons under the statute. The Supreme Court held that a local school board is more like a county or city than an arm of the State and cannot claim Eleventh Amendment immunity, though the classification of other entities depends on how Michigan law treats them.
Related Michigan pages
- Michigan civil rights attorney
- Qualified immunity and governmental immunity
- Section 1983 claims
- Civil rights deadlines and notice requirements
- Government claims and notice deadlines
I represent people with civil rights claims against Michigan cities and counties. Contact me 24/7 by phone or email. Your Rights, My Fight! Call for a free initial consultation.
Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.
Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan.
This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.