Did the panel err in determining that the signs posted by Respondent were too 'inexact' and 'nebulous' in meaning to constitute municipal policy for § 1983 'episodic act or omission' purposes, rather than treating the interpretation of such self-identified ambiguities as a question of fact

QUESTION PRESENTED Did the panel err — in the summary judgment context — in determining as a matter of law, on the basis of no articulated evidence or authority, that the signs posted by Respondent were too “inexact” and “nebulous” in meaning to constitute municipal policy for § 1983 “episodic act or omission” purposes, rather than treating the interpretation of such self-identified ambiguities as a question of fact, where the non-movant supplied ample evidence establishing that such signs constituted clear official approval of detainee mistreatment? ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ¢ Garza v. City of Donna, No. 7:16-cv-00558, U.S. District Court for the Southern District Of Texas. Judgment entered December 15, 2017. ¢ Garza v. City of Donna, No. 18-40044, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Judgment entered April 26, 2019.