Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00568/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00568-5/pdf.json

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

---

________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

0

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 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

Nancy K. Delaney, SBN 70617 

William F. Mitchell, SBN 159831 

Nicholas R. Kloeppel, SBN 186165 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, DELANEY & VRIEZE 

Attorneys at Law 

814 Seventh Street 

P. O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

Tel: (707) 443-5643 

Fax: (707) 444-9586 

Attorneys for Defendants 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ELIN SPELLMAN, on behalf of herself 

and all those similarly situated; 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HUMBOLDT COUNTY, HUMBOLDT 

COUNTY SHERIFF GARY PHILP, IN 

HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL 

CAPACITIES, HUMBOLDT COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

HUMBOLDT COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPUTIES DOES 1 THROUGH 50, AND 

ROES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO: C-05-00568-SBA 

 ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT 

Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 63 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 4
________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

1

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 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment came on regularly for hearing on May 

23, 2006. Mark E. Merin appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and Mitchell, Brisso, 

Delaney & Vrieze, by Nancy K. Delaney, appeared on behalf of the defendants. 

 Having considered the papers filed and arguments of counsel, and good cause 

appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department is not a proper defendant in a 42 

U.S.C. section 1983 claim as it is merely a department of the County of Humboldt, and 

municipal departments are not suable entities in section 1983 claims. See Vance v. 

County of Santa Clara, 928 F.Supp. 993, 996 (N.D. Cal. 1996), quoting Stump v. Gates, 

77 F.Supp 808, 816 (D. Colo. 1991). Accordingly, the section 1983 claim against the 

Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department is DISMISSED with prejudice. 

To prevail on a section 1983 claim against the County of Humboldt, sued herein as 

Humboldt County (the “County”), Plaintiff must be able to show that: (1) she was 

deprived of her constitutional rights; (2) the County has a policy, a de facto custom, or a 

practice; (3) the policy, the de facto custom, or the practice amounted to deliberate 

indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights; and (4) the policy, the de facto custom, or 

the practice was the moving force behind the constitutional violation. See Monell v. New 

York City Dep’t of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658 (1978); City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 

378 (1989); Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff alleges that the County had the following unconstitutional de facto

custom or practice: as part of the search procedure, women, who could not otherwise be 

subject to a strip search, were required to remove all of their clothing, either down to their 

underwear, or, if they were not wearing underwear, to their bare breasts in a non-private 

area in the presence of males. See Hearing Transcript at 8:15-19. The Court finds that 

there is no evidence presented of such a de facto custom or practice, except for Plaintiff’s 

Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 63 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 4
________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

account of what happened to her. However, a single incident does not establish a custom 

or practice for purposes of a Monell claim. City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 

808, 823-24 (1985) (“Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not 

sufficient to impose liability under Monell . . . .”). Municipal liability may be established 

with a showing of a “long standing practice or custom which constitutes the standard 

operating procedure of the local government entity.” Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 

U.S. 701, 737 (1989). The custom must be so “persistent and widespread” that it 

constitutes a “permanent and well-settled [municipal] policy.” Monell v. Dept. of Social 

Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978); Trevino v. Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 918 (9th Cir. 1996); 

Gellette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346-47 (9th Cir. 1992). 

There is no basis for liability as to Defendant Sheriff Philp in the absence of 

evidence of an underlying constitutional violation. Liability may be imposed on a 

supervisor under Section 1983 only if (1) the supervisor personally participated in the 

deprivation of constitutional rights, or (2) the supervisor knew of the violations and failed 

to act or prevent them, or (3) the supervisor implemented a policy “so deficient that the 

policy itself is a repudiation of constitutional rights and is the moving force of the 

constitutional violation.” Redman v. County of San Diego, 942 F.2d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 

1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1074 (1992); Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 646 (9th Cir. 

1989). It is uncontroverted that Defendant Sheriff Philp did not participate in the alleged 

strip search of Plaintiff, and did not know of the alleged strip search or fail to prevent it. 

Furthermore, there is no evidence of a deficient policy, de facto custom, or practice that 

Defendant Sheriff Philp implemented. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the County of Humboldt and Defendant Sheriff 

Philp’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s section 1983 claim. 

 With no federal claims remaining, the Court declines to exercise its jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s remaining state law claims. See Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill, 

Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 63 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 4
________________________________________________________________________ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

3

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 

MITCHELL, BRISSO, 

DELANEY & VRIEZE 

814 Seventh Street 

P.O. Drawer 1008 

Eureka, CA 95502 

484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (“[I]n the usual case in which all federal claims are eliminated 

before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction 

over the remaining state law claims.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s state law claims are 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED, and the 

clerk is directed to close the file. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 6/9/06 ______________________________________ 

 HONORABLE SAUNDRA B. ARMSTRONG 

 

Case 4:05-cv-00568-SBA Document 63 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 4