Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

James Aggrey-Kweggyirr Arunga v. Sgt. Weldon, Detective Officer of the Alameda City Department of Police

469 F.2d 675

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1972-11-15
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: The plaintiff filed an action against the City of Alameda alleging that he had been deprived of rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1986. The complaint was dismissed on motion upon the ground that the city is not a “person” and cannot be sued under the Civil Rights Act. An amended pleading based upon the same statute against the same defendant was again dismissed and this appeal taken. 1 It is abundantly clear that a municipal corporation is not a “person” subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed. *676 2d 492 (1961); Moor v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed James Aggrey-Kweggyirr Arunga v. Sgt. Weldon, Detective Officer of the Alameda City Department of Police. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
20 opinions
ARUNGA v. WELDON,469 F.2d 675(9th Cir. 1972)
JAMES AGGREY-KWEGGYIRR ARUNGA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. SGT. WELDON,
DETECTIVE OFFICER OF THE ALAMEDA CITY DEPARTMENT OF POLICE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 72-2275.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
November 15, 1972.
James Aggrey-Kweggyirr Arunga, in pro. per.

Frederick M. Cunningham, City Atty., Alameda, Cal., Peter W. Davis, of Crosby, Heafey, Roach May, Oakland, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before DUNIWAY, ELY and TRASK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The plaintiff filed an action against the City of Alameda alleging that he had been deprived of rights in violation of42 U.S.C. § 1981and 1986. The complaint was dismissed on motion upon the ground that the city is not a "person" and cannot be sued under the Civil Rights Act. An amended pleading based upon the same statute against the same defendant was again dismissed and this appeal taken.1

[2] It is abundantly clear that a municipal corporation is not a "person" subject to suit under42 U.S.C. § 1983. Monroe v. Pape,365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.Page 6762d 492 (1961); Moor v. Madigan,458 F.2d 1217(9th Cir. 1972); Diamond v. Pitchess,411 F.2d 565(9th Cir. 1969). The district court was unquestionably correct and we affirm.Page 678
  1. An application for a three-judge court was also denied below, but that order is not properly before us. ↩