JAMES AGGREY-KWEGGYIRR ARUNGA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
SGT. WELDON, DETECTIVE OFFICER OF THE ALAMEDA CITY DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
JAMES AGGREY-KWEGGYIRR ARUNGA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
SGT. WELDON, DETECTIVE OFFICER OF THE ALAMEDA CITY DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
469 F.2d 675
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1972)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Topics
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:
The plaintiff filed an action against the City of Alameda alleging that he had been deprived of rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1986. The complaint was dismissed on motion upon the ground that the city is not a “person” and cannot be sued under the Civil Rights Act. An amended pleading based upon the same statute against the same defendant was again dismissed and this appeal taken.1
It is abundantly clear that a municipal corporation is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed. 2d 492 (1961); Moor v. Madigan, 458 F. 2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1972); Diamond v. Pitchess, 411 F. 2d 565 (9th Cir. 1969). The district court was unquestionably correct and we affirm.
. An application for a three-judge court was also denied below, but that order is not properly before us.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mahone v. Waddle, 564 F.2d 1018 (3d Cir. 1977)
-
Wade v. Miss. Coop. Extension Serv., 528 F.2d 508 (5th Cir. 1976)
-
Tejpal S. Sethy v. Alameda Co. Water Dist., 545 F.2d 1157 (9th Cir. 1976)
Authorities Cited
- Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1961)
- Moor v. Madigan, 458 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1972)
- Diamond v. Pitchess, 411 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. 1969)