Streit v. County of LA.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | 99-56041,99-56233,99-56042,99-56310,99-56766,99-55899,99-55898,Nos. 99-55897,s. 99-55897 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) VALERIE STREIT, individually and as class representative; DIEGO SANTILLANA, individually and as class representative; MICHAEL ROERICH, individually, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a governmental entity; JERRY HARPER, Undersheriff; MICHAEL GRAHAM, Assistant Sheriff; BARRY KING, Chief; BOB PASH, Chief; DANIEL BURT, Commander, Defendants-Appellants. EDDIE SHIELDS, individually and as a class representative, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a governmental entity; JERRY HARPER, Undersheriff; MICHAEL GRAHAM, Assistant Sheriff; BARRY KING, Chief; BOB PASH, Chief; DANIEL BURT, Commander, Defendants-Appellants. RANDALL CLEAVES, individually and as class representative; ALFRED CARRILLO, individually and as class representative, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a governmental entity; JERRY HARPER, Undersheriff; MICHAEL GRAHAM, Assistant Sheriff; BARRY KING, Chief; BOB PASH, Chief; DANIEL BURT, Commander, Defendants-Appellants. MUNIQUE WILLIAMS; MICHAEL E. WHITE; APRIL MARIE COURIE; ERIC MITCHELL; DIANERAMIREZ, individually, and as class representative; HEATHER YOUSIF, individually, and as class representative; MARGO V. BORRUP, individually, and as class representative; QUINTON COOPER; RUBY SELLARS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SHERMAN BLOCK, Sheriff, individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendant, and LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendant-Appellant. LEELLEN PATCHEN, individually and as class representative; STEVEN GRAY, individually and as class representative; ISAAC TCHAKMAKJIAN, individually and as class representative, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a governmental entity; LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellants. MICHAEL E. WHITE; APRIL MARIE COURIE; ERIC MITCHELL; DIANE RAMIREZ, individually and as class representative; HEATHER YOUSIF, individually and as class representative; MARGO V. BORRUP, individually and as class representative; QUINTON COOPER; RUBY SELL |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David D. Lawrence, Scott D. MacLatchie, and Chandra Gehri Spencer, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts, & Lawrence, Pasadena, California, for the defendants-appellants.
John Burton, Law Offices of John Burton, Pasadena, California; Barrett S. Litt, Litt & Associates, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiffs-appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California William J. Rea, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No.CV-98-09575-WJR D.C. No.CV-98-09695-WJR D.C. No.CV-98-09573-WJR D.C. No. CV-97-03826-WJR D.C. No. CV-98-09574-WJR D.C. No.CV-97-03826-WJR D.C. No. CV-99-00586-WJR D.C. No. CV-97-03826-WJR
Before: Harry Pregerson, Warren J. Ferguson, and Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.
Does the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the "LASD") in adopting and administering its policy of requiring that a records check, including review of all wants and holds received on a prisoner's release date, act on behalf of the state of California or on behalf of the County of Los Angeles (the "County")? The answer to this question determines whether the County may be subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs ., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978). Because we conclude that the LASD, when implementing its policy of conducting prisoner release records checks, acts for the County in its capacity as the administrator of the Los Angeles County jails, we hold that both the LASD and the County are subject to liability under section 1983. We also reject the LASD's contention that it is an "arm of the state," reiterating our determination that it is subject to liability under section 1983. We also conclude that the LASD is a "public entity" that is separately suable in federal court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.SS 1291 and 1292(b), and we affirm.
Appellees brought suit against the County, its late Sheriff, Sherman Block, the LASD, and various LASD officials responsible for the management and operation of the Los Angeles County jails. The appellees allege that they were detained in county jails after all legal justification for their seizure and detention ended, in violation of both federal and state law.
Before an inmate is released from prison, the LASD conducts a check of the Automated Justice Information System ("AJIS"), a computerized law enforcement database, to confirm that the prisoner is not wanted by any other law enforcement agency. It is the LASD's policy, however, to run the AJIS check only after all wants and holds that arrive on the day a prisoner is scheduled for release are inputted into the database. Due to the high volume of wants and holds received each day, the inputting process can, and often does, take between one to two days to complete. It is only after the inputting process is complete and the computer check run, that the LASD begins the administrative steps toward a prisoner's release. Although no longer required to serve time, these prisoners must remain in jail during the inputting period, extending their incarceration beyond their release date.1
Appellees seek monetary damages for overdetention in each of these six separately filed actions.2 The County and LASD moved to dismiss the appellees' suits. In all of the district court actions but one, the County moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the section 1983 claims brought against it.3 In the other district court action, the County moved for summary judgment on the appellees' section 1983 claims.4 The LASD moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss all six actions in one consolidated motion.
Relying on McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (1997), and the California Court of Appeal decision in County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Peters), 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 860 (Ct. App. 1998), the County argued that because the Sheriff of Los Angeles (the "Sheriff") functions as a state -not county -official engaged in a law enforcement function, the County cannot be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for the alleged constitutional torts of the Sheriff or his deputies. The LASD similarly contended that because it is an "arm of the state,"5 the LASD is not within the section 1983 definition of "person," and therefore it could not be held liable. The LASD also urged dismissal on the grounds that it is not a separately suable public entity under California Government Code 811.2.
The district court rejected each of these arguments and denied the LASD's motion to dismiss all claims. It denied in part, and granted in part, the County's five motions for dismissal in a series of roughly identical orders. 6 In its joint tentative ruling denying the County's motions to dismiss and the LASD consolidated motion to dismiss, the district court distinguished Peters, which broadly held that "in setting policies concerning the release of persons from the Los Angeles County jail, the Los Angeles County Sheriff acts as a state officer performing state law enforcement duties, and not as a policymaker on behalf of the County of Los Angeles. " Peters, 80 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 868. The court noted that the law enforcement function involved in Peters was "determining whether to release a person who may be subject to arrest on an outstanding warrant." It found that, here, "the over detention had nothing to do with the sheriff's law enforcement function [because,] [i]n contrast to Peters , there is no dispute that Plaintiffs were entitled to be released." Rather,"the sheriff's conduct at issue relates to a purely administrative function," and "where the Sheriff acts in a purely administrative manner such action is pursuant to their [sic] county, not state, authority." Thus, the district court held that the LASD was subject to 1983 liability for these actions.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Mendez v. City of Ceres
...605 (9th Cir. 1986). Thus, in California, a police department "may be sued in Federal court." Id. ; see also Streit v. County of Los Angeles , 236 F.3d 552, 565-67 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding, in the context of a § 1983 action, that local law enforcement agencies may be sued in federal court).......
-
Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo
...the Ninth Circuit has engaged in an "independent analysis of California's constitution, statutes and case law." Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552, 561 (9th Cir.2001). The Ninth Circuit has given appropriate deference to a state's legal characterization of the government entities......
-
Munoz v. Kolender
...represents entitles him to the relief he seeks. Unlike the effect of a sheriff's department policy identified in Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552, 555 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 122 S.Ct. 59, 151 L.Ed.2d 27 (2001), authority relied on by Munoz, the duration of Muno......
-
Womack v. County of Amador
...236 F.3d 552, 561 (9th Cir.2001). Because § 1983 liability implicates federal, not state law, California case law is not controlling. Id. at 564; see Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 647 n. 30, 100 S.Ct. 1398, 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980) ("Municipal defenses-including an assertion of s......
-
Governmental Immunity: Recent Developments Concerning the 11th Amendment and the Kansas Tort Claims Act
...was not an arm of the state and, therefore, not entitled to immunity under the 11th Amendment). See also Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552, 566 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding that Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was not entitled to protection of sovereign immunity as it was no......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
...v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552(9th Cir. 2001). Detainees brought a [ss] 1983 action against a county and sheriffs department seeking damages for overdetention. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: RELEASE DATE LIABLITY- RELEASE OF PRISONER TIMELY RELEASE.
...v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552(9th Cir. 2001). Detainees brought a [sections] 1983 action against a county and sheriffs department seeking damages for overdetention. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held th......
-
U.S. Appeals Court: ELEVENTH AMENDMENT.
...v. County of Los Angeles. 236 F.3d 552(9th Cir. 2001). Detainees brought a [ss] 1983 action against a county and sheriffs department seeking damages for overdetention. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the......