Jews for Jesus, “‘the opportunity for abuse, especially where a statute has received a virtually open-ended interpretation, is self-evident.’ ” Id. 482 U.S. at 576, 107 S.Ct. at 2573 (quoting Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130, 135-36, 94 S.Ct. 970, 974, 39 L.Ed.2d 214 (1974) (Powell, M., concurring)). Responsible Parties The City argues that it should be dismissed from the case, because in the City’s lease with the Reds, the Reds have the right to control ' the stadium during baseball games. The City further notes that neither City Council nor the City Manager has ever adopted or promulgated a rule, regulation, or, policy prohibiting the display of a banner during a Reds’ game. See Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2037, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Aubrey contends that the City’s policy
holding that a municipality may not assert the defense of qualified immunity but may be held liable under  1983 only for a constitutional deprivation inflicted by the execution of a governments policy or custom whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy  holding that municipality may not be held liable under  1983 upon theory of respondeat superior holding that a municipality may only be held liable under  1983 for a policy practice or custom holding that a municipality cannot be held liable for an official policy or custom if it has been determined that the individual defendants did not violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights holding that a municipality may be held liable as a person under  1983