Joseph Johnson, Jr. v. Mitchell Conner

Good Law
453 F. App'x 719
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 12, 201110-15043California349 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Joseph Johnson, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights in connection with his civil commitment proceedings under California’s Sexually Violent Predator Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815-16 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam) (summary judgment and dismissal under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s § 1983 municipal liability claim against Santa Clara County because its District Attorney acted as an agent of the state, not the county, in committing the alleged constitutional violations, and Johnson failed to state a viable claim that his constitutional deprivations resulted from any official county custom or policy. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); see also McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781, 795 , 117 S.Ct. 1734 , 138 L.Ed.2d 1 (1997) (state law informs whether a county employee is considered a state or county official for the purposes of § 1983 liability); Pitts v. County of Kern, 17…

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.