Rafael Sandoval v. County of Sonoma

MEMORANDUM

The County of Sonoma, the Sonoma County Sheriffs Office, and Sonoma County Sheriff-Coroner Steve Freitas appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit on immunity grounds. We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 141 , 113 S.Ct. 684 , 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993). On de novo review, Brown v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.2009), we affirm.

Defendants first contend that they are entitled to immunity because they do not have “final policymaking authority.” We reject this argument. The named defendants are officials “whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

Defendants also assert that they are immune from suit because county sheriffs act as state, rather than county, officials when enforcing the California Vehicle Code. In Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2001), we held that “California sheriffs are county actors when investigating crime.” Id. at 811 . Three years later, in Venegas v. County of Los…