Arunga v. Weldon, 72-2275.

Decision Date15 November 1972
Docket NumberNo. 72-2275.,72-2275.
PartiesJames Aggrey-Kweggyirr ARUNGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sgt. WELDON, Detective Officer of the Alameda City Department of Police, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

James Aggrey-Kweggyirr Arunga, in pro. per.

Frederick M. Cunningham, City Atty., Alameda, Cal., Peter W. Davis, of Crosby, Heafey, Roach & May, Oakland, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Before DUNIWAY, ELY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiff filed an action against the City of Alameda alleging that he had been deprived of rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1986. The complaint was dismissed on motion upon the ground that the city is not a "person" and cannot be sued under the Civil Rights Act. An amended pleading based upon the same statute against the same defendant was again dismissed and this appeal taken.1

It is abundantly clear that a municipal corporation is not a "person" subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1961) ; Moor v. Madigan, 458 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1972) ; Diamond v. Pitchess, 411 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1969). The district court was unquestionably correct and we affirm.

1 An application for a three-judge court was also denied below, but that order is not properly before us.

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • United States v. State of South Carolina, Civ. A. No. 75-1610.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • January 16, 1978
    ...U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961). Similarly, none of these defendants are subject to suit under Section 1981. Arunga v. Weldon, 469 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1972); Black Brothers Combined v. City of Richmond, 386 F.Supp. 147 (E.D.Va.1974); Bennett v. Gravelle, 323 F.Supp. 203, 216-17 ......
  • Vasquez v. City of Reno, Civ. No. 78-0055-HEC.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • December 7, 1978
    ...municipal corporation, is not a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1986, on the authority of Monroe v. Pape. Arunga v. Weldon, 469 F.2d 675, 676 (9th Cir., 1972). This theory must be reexamined in light of the principles heretofore stated in Monell v. Department of Social Services, Ap......
  • Skyers v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • December 28, 1976
    ...One line of cases holds that the term "person" as utilized in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 applies equally to § 1981. See, e. g., Arunga v. Weldon, 469 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1972); Redding v. Medica, 402 F.Supp. 1260 (W.D.Pa.1975); Black Bros. Combined v. City of Richmond, 386 F.Supp. 147 (E.D.Va.1974). T......
  • Chavez-Salido v. Cabell, CV 76-0541-IH.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • March 14, 1977
    ......And our Circuit in Arunga v. Weldon, 469 F.2d 675 (9th Cir. 1972) appears to have accepted that argument, holding that a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT