Schuman v. State of Cal., 77-2856
Decision Date | 19 July 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 77-2856,77-2856 |
Citation | 584 F.2d 868 |
Parties | Mary Ann SCHUMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mary Ann Schuman, in pro per.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before CHOY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI, * District Judge.
Ms. Schuman appeals from the dismissal with prejudice of her amended complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3). We affirm.
Appellant is an elderly person who was required to take several motor vehicle driving tests which led to the revocation of her driver's license. Her persistent efforts to regain her license, all fruitless, included a state court mandamus action and taking additional driving tests. In her instant suit she names as defendants the Governor and the Attorney General of the State of California, a state trial judge, two deputy state attorneys general, a state highway patrolman, several employees of the State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and the City of Riverside.
To state a cause of action under § 1985(3), appellant must claim " some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus." Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). No such claim was made.
Since that portion of the amended complaint based on § 1983 alleges no acts on the part of the state defendants (besides the DMV employees), but merely lists their names, no claim for relief is stated as to them. Also, the state trial judge, who presided over the mandamus action, enjoys judicial immunity in suits of this nature. See Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978) (Passim ). Therefore, the dismissal of the § 1983 action as to the non-DMV state defendants was proper.
Until recently, the City of Riverside would not have been considered a "person" within the meaning of § 1983. However, the Supreme Court has held in Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), that
Congress Did intend municipalities and other local government units to be included among those persons to whom § 1983 applies. Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body's officers.
436 at 690, 98 S.Ct. at 2035-36 (emphasis original) (footnotes omitted). Therefore, the City of Riverside is subject to suit in this case.
As to the City and the DMV employees who were allegedly involved in the license revocation: § 1983 requires the deprivation of a federal right. Williams v. Field, 416 F.2d 483, 485 (9th Cir. 1969). We find such a federal right by adopting the analysis of the First Circuit which held that the use of a motor vehicle is a "liberty" interest protected by due process. See Raper v. Lucey, 488 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir. 1973); Wall v. King, 206 F.2d 878, 882 (1st Cir.), Cert. denied, 346 U.S. 915, 74 S.Ct. 275, 98 L.Ed. 411 (1953); Cf. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wright v. City of Reno
...deprives the owner of a property interest, Stypmann v. City of San Francisco, supra, or liberty interest, Schuman v. State of California, 584 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1978), that may be taken from him only in accordance with the Due Process Clause. The Stypmann opinion, at 557 F.2d 1344, declares......
-
Morrison v. Jones
...Cf. Denman v. Leedy, 479 F.2d 1097 (6th Cir. 1973); Smith v. Rosenbaum, 460 F.2d 1019 (3d Cir. 1972). See also Schuman v. State of California, 584 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1978); Gillibeau v. City of Richmond, 417 F.2d 426, 429 n.4 (9th Cir. 1969). Cf. Stewart v. Minnick, 409 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1......
-
U.S. v. Eklund, 82-2505
... ... alleges sufficient facts to take the question past the frivolous state, United States v. Erne, 576 F.2d 212 (9th Cir.1978); United States v ... Wayte, 549 F.Supp. 1376, 1384 (C.D.Cal.1982). Eklund points to the government's failure to implement a broader ... ...
-
Kraft v. Jacka, CV-N-86-340-ECR.
...1985(3), plaintiffs must claim `some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidious discriminatory animus.'" Schuman v. State of California, 584 F.2d 868, 870 (9th Cir.1978), quoting, Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). The plaintiffs' ......
-
Administrative hearings
...as a “liberty interest” that is protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See Schuman v. California, 584 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1978). In Schuman, the court discussed the revocation procedures of the Department of Motor Vehicles in California, determining wheth......