Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00195-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LE ROI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-0195 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS CAUSES OF ACTION

ASSERTED AGAINST DEFENDANT

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY; VACATING

HEARING

(Docket No. 24)

Before the Court is the motion filed March 28, 2007 by defendant Contra Costa

County (“County”) to dismiss the claims asserted against it, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No opposition to the motion has been filed. Having

considered the papers filed in support of the motion, the Court finds the matter appropriate

for decision without oral argument, see Civil L.R. 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the May 4, 2007

hearing, and rules as follows:

All claims asserted against the County are subject to dismissal because Johnson

fails to allege he was injured as a result of an unconstitutional policy or custom of the

County. See Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978) (holding

“local government may not be sued under § 1983 for an injury inflicted solely by its

employees or agents; rather, “it is when execution of a government's policy or custom,

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 34 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

1

 The Court previously has dismissed all claims asserted against the Hon. Peter

Berger, for failure to state a claim, and has dismissed all claims asserted against the El

Cerrito defendants for improper joinder. (See Docket Nos. 5, 6.) 

2

whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to

represent official policy, inflicts the injury that the government as an entity is responsible

under § 1983"); Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552, 559 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A

county is subject to section 1983 liability . . . if its policies . . . caused the particular

constitutional violation at issue.”). There is no indication that such deficiency can be cured

by amendment, as there is no allegation, with respect to any of plaintiff’s remaining claims,1

that a County employee caused plaintiff any injury.

Accordingly, the County’s motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and all claims

asserted against the County are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.

This order terminates Docket No. 24.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00195-MMC Document 34 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2