standard requires plaintiff to show that the applicant’s background “would lead a reasonable policymaker to conclude that the plainly obvious consequence of the decision to hire the applicant would be the deprivation of a third party’s federally protected right[s].” Brown, 520 U.S. at 411, 117 S.Ct. 1382. In other words, municipal liability depends on a finding that the person hired “was highly likely to inflict the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.” Id. at 412, 117 S.Ct. 1382. Furthermore, “[t]he connection between the background of the particular applicant and the specific constitutional violation alleged must be strong.” Id.; see Young, 404 F.3d at 30 (“This standard is exceptionally stringent.”); Gros v. City of Grand Prairie, 209 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Barney v. Pulsipher, 143 F.3d 1299, 1308
holding that the plaintiff demonstrated pretext in part by establishing a causal connection holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action holding that some federal connection to the misconduct is required holding that a fourmonth interval was sufficient to support an allegation of a causal connection strong enough to survive a summary judgment motion recognizing that a strong causal connection is required quotation omitted