“An official capacity claim filed against a public employee generally represents another way of pleading an action against the public entity that agent represents.” Curtis v. Breathitt Cnty. Fiscal Court, 756 Fed.Appx. 519, 525 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165 (1985)); see also Matthews v. Jones, 35 F.3d 1046, 1049 (6th Cir. 1994) (“A suit against an individual in his official capacity is the equivalent of a suit against the governmental entity.” (citation omitted))
Curtis v. Breathitt Cnty. Fiscal Court, No. 18-5180, 2018 WL 6012328, at *4 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Gutierrez v. Lynch, 826 F.2d 1534, 1538-39 (6th Cir.
That is, "the plaintiff must prove that the municipality itself caused the constitutional violation; respondeat superior does not attach under Section 1983." Id. at 493 (citing Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 691, 694-95 (1978)); see also Curtis v. Breathitt Cnty. Fiscal Court, 756 F. App'x 519, 525-26 (6th Cir. 2018) ("[The plaintiff] cannot base her claims against [the county court] solely on [a judge's] conduct because respondeat superior is not available as a theory of recovery under section 1983." (internal citations omitted)); Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350, 1359 (2011) ("[U]nder § 1983, local governments are responsible only for their own illegal acts.
It is well-settled that "respondeat superior is not available as a theory of recovery under section 1983." Curtis v. Breathitt County Fiscal Court , 756 Fed.Appx. 519 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing Doe v. Claiborne Cty., Tenn ., 103 F.3d 495, 507 (6th Cir. 1996) and Monell ). Accordingly, plaintiffs "must prove that the municipality itself is the wrongdoer." Id.