With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (See Odom Dep. at 75-76.) Other than her expert’s opinion as to the communication that occurred in the one incident involving Harvey, Harvey points to no evidence to support a finding that the County knew its training on the subject of communication created an unjustifiable risk to citizens and that the County ignored that risk. See Mateyko, 924 F.2d at 826. Indeed, Harvey offers no evidence concerning the County’s training, or lack thereof, on this subject. Without more, Harvey cannot establish a policy based on evidence of a lack of communication between Deputy Perez and others present at the time Perez decided to detain Harvey. A plaintiff cannot establish the existence of a policy based on a single incident. See Meehan v. County of Los Angeles, 856 F.2d 102, 107 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the County is entitled to

A: holding that when two penetrations were separated by a short period of time two independent assaults occurred
B: holding where court could not see how defendants prior assaults established motive to commit charged murder admission of prior assaults was abuse of discretion
C: recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions 
D: holding evidence that county employees engaged in unconstitutional assaults on two occasions insufficient to support finding such assaults were pursuant to county policy
D.