judgment was appropriate on the causation issue because the plaintiff “could not even raise[] a question of fact as to causation”). The district court found a causal connection by holding that since Fite would not have sexually assaulted Parrish if he knew he was committing a felony, that training on the contents of the law would have prevented the constitutional violation. Parrish, 2008 WL 4495704, at *3. While this finding may establish “but for” causation, it ignores the additional requirement that “ ‘the identified deficiency in [the county’s] training program ... be closely related to the ultimate injury.’ ” Andrews, 98 F.3d at 1076 (quoting City of Canton, 489 U.S. at 391, 109 S.Ct. 1197); see also Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 285, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980) (<HOLDING>). As we have noted, in cases such as this where
recognizing an action for damages against unknown federal agents for the violation of constitutional rights holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify holding that a constitutional violation was too remote a consequence of the defendants action to hold them responsible under the federal civil rights law recognizing cause of action against federal officials for violation of constitutional rights