Case ID: f-appx_690/html/0481-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Omar CHAVEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF PETALUMA; et al., Defendants, and County of Sonoma and Steve Freitas, Sonoma County Sheriff, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-17287
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 19, 2017 San Francisco, California
    Filed April 26, 2017
    Erik G. Babcock, Attorney, Law Office of Erick G. Babcock, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    
      Petra Bruggisser, Sonoma County Counsel’s Office, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: REINHARDT and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY, District Judge.
    
      
      The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Omar Chavez was detained in the Sono-ma County Jail for more than 60 days on a parole hold when, in fact, he was not on parole. He appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking relief against the County of Sonoma and Sheriff Steve Freitas for violating his rights under the Due Process Clause.

The district court dismissed Chavez’s First Amended Complaint, among other reasons, because the complaint did not plausibly allege facts to support liability for the County under Monell v. Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), and because Sheriff Freitas was immune from suit in his personal capacity. In his briefs on appeal, Chavez did not contest either the Monell ruling or the immunity ruling. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.