Barela

Barela v. City of Woodland

Good Law
358 F. App'x 857
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 1, 200907-35585California984 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED in accord with the Amended Disposition filed simultaneously with this order. No further Petitions for Rehearing will be entertained.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM

Juan Barela appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his claims against all defendants. We affirm with respect to the City of Woodland, the Woodland Police Chief, Susan Baur, Thomas Ladouceur, and Anne Cruser. We reverse with respect to Officer Jeanne Canepa.

Barela alleges that his First and Fourth Amendment rights were violated as a result of the City of Woodland’s policy of deliberate indifference toward constitutional rights — a policy that manifests itself during the training and supervision of City employees. Although a municipal government is not generally liable for the constitutional torts of its employees or agents, liability can attach under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when a constitutional violation is caused by the execution of a government custom or policy. Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). In this case, however, Barela has not offered sufficient evidence — or indeed any evidence at all — that…

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.