Blumberg

Blumberg v. Gates

Good Law
144 F. Supp. 2d 1221·2001 WL 682203·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12544
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJune 13, 2001CV 00-05607 GAF (AJWx)California1,971 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feess, J.

AMENDED ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

I.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Paul Blumberg contends his constitutional rights were violated when he was falsely arrested by officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) in 1997. His case is connected to the LAPD’s Rampart Division scandal.

Plaintiff has sued 19 current and/or former members of the Los Angeles City Council (the “City Council Defendants”), the City Attorney and 17 current and/or former members of his staff (the “City Attorney Defendants”). Plaintiff contends each of these defendants can be held individually liable, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“section 1983”), based on their role in indemnifying police officers assessed punitive damages by juries in civil rights cases. (See Complaint at ¶¶ 30-40). In other words, plaintiff contends that historical decisions to indemnify police officers — not even the officers involved in the cases before the Court — in prior civil rights lawsuits have caused the constitutional violations that plaintiff alleges in his complaint.

Rejecting this extraordinary contention after a thorough review of relevant Ninth Circuit precedent and decisions from other circuits, this…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.