Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01945/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01945-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

*E-FILED 9/20/05*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

GIUSEPPE "NINO" CAMPANELLA, 

ET AL., 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

JEFFREY LONGORIA, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

NO. 5:05-cv-1945 RS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS SECOND CLAIM FOR

RELIEF AGAINST THE COUNTY

Plaintiffs, Giuseppe Nino Campanella, Lynette Campanella, and Guiseppe and Lynette Campanella

as guardians ad litem for Domenica Campanella, Carmela Campanella, Sarina Campanella, and Guiseppe

Campanella, Jr. (collectively "plaintiffs"), bring suit against several deputy sheriffs ("Sheriffs"), as well as the

County of Santa Clara ("County"), seeking recovery for violations of their civil rights and other state laws

alleged to have occurred during a search of their residence. Plaintiffs' second claim for relief against the

County alleges that there is a pattern of ongoing unconstitutional practices and violations by the deputy

sheriffs consisting of false arrests, illegal searches, and excessive use of force. The County moves to

dismiss the second claim for relief filed against it based on the California Supreme Court's decision in

Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal. 4th 820, 839 (2004), in which the court held that sheriffs are

Case 5:05-cv-01945-RS Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

state rather than County actors when investigating crimes. The motion to dismiss was submitted on the

papers by the Court, pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

Based on all papers filed to date, including the briefs filed by the parties in a companion case, C04-4906 RS, "Campanella I," in which the Court addressed this identical issue, the motion to dismiss the

second claim for relief against the County is granted. As noted in Campanella I, the Ninth Circuit has

explained that Circuit authority may be superceded bu a contrary decision of a court of last resort. Miller v.

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 900 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, while confronted with the opposite finding in earlier

Circuit decisions, the California Supreme Court, the court of last resort on the particular issue at hand, has

found in Venegas that County Sheriffs act as agents of the state while performing their law enforcement

roles and, therefore, are entitled to immunity from a § 1983 claim under the Eleventh Amendment. 

Accordingly, the second claim for relief against the County based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is dismissed. 

The case management conference, both in this action and in Campanella I, scheduled for

September 21, 2005 is continued to October 5, 2005. Counsel shall meet and confer and file a joint case

management statement on or before September 28, 2005. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 9/20/05 /s/ Richard Seeborg 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01945-RS Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Anthony Boskovich policemisconduct@compuserve.com 

Aryn Paige Harris aryn_harris@cco.co.scl.ca.us 

Dated: 9/20/05 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

 

Case 5:05-cv-01945-RS Document 19 Filed 09/20/05 Page 3 of 3