those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible under § 1983.” Monell, 436 U.S. at 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018. A plaintiff can attribute a constitutional tort to the city itself by showing the injury was caused by city policy, by city custom, or by policymaking officials’ deliberate indifference to constituents’ constitutional rights. See Canton, 489 U.S. at 389, 109 S.Ct. 1197. “Policy is made when a ‘decisionmaker [with] final authority to establish municipal policy with respect to the action’ issues an official proclamation, policy, or edict.” Andrews, 895 F.2d at 1480 (alteration in Andrews) (quoting Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 481, 106 S.Ct. 1292); see, e.g., Pembaur, 475 U.S. at 485, 106 S.Ct. 1292 (<HOLDING>). “Custom ... can be proven by showing that a
holding that doctors do not have to accept patients holding city liable when county prosecutor instructed deputy sheriffs to forcibly enter a doctors office and effect an arrest holding to the same effect holding that arrest warrant permits police to enter residence of person named therein to make arrest holding doctors letter is inadmissible hearsay