Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00904/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00904-1/pdf.json

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

---

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-07-0904 MMC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS CAUSES OF ACTION

ASSERTED AGAINST DEFENDANTS

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AND

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY OFFICE OF

REVENUE COLLECTIONS; VACATING

HEARING

(Docket No. 5)

Before the Court is the motion filed March 29, 2007 by defendants Contra Costa

County and Contra Costa County Office of Revenue Collections (jointly, “County”) to

dismiss the claims asserted against them, 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

Case 3:07-cv-00904-MMC Document 11 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

2

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

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 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. 5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00904-MMC Document 11 Filed 04/30/07 Page 2 of 2