Dahlz v. County of San Mateo

Full title: Justin R. DAHLZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; San Mateo…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 2, 2001

6 F. App'x 575 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

6 Fed.Appx. 575 (9th Cir. 2001) Justin R. DAHLZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; San Mateo County Sheriff's Department; Leonard E. Cardoza, Sheriff of County of San Mateo; W.L. Hudson & Sons, Inc., a California corporation; Clifford V. Cretan, Defendants-Appellees. No. 99-17109. D.C. No. CV-98-04020-VRW. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 2, 2001

Submitted February 14, 2001. ^*

* The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Debtor brought § 1983 and state law claims against judge, county, sheriff's department, police officers, creditor, and creditor's attorney, after he was arrested for failure to appear for a debtor's examination. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker, granted defendants' motions to dismiss, and debtor appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) California law allowed judge to issue warrant for failure to appear for debtor's examination; (2) debtor could not maintain a § 1983 action against creditor and attorney; (3) debtor could not establish that county or sheriff's department had a "policy or custom" that violated his constitutional rights; (4) arresting officers were entitled to absolute immunity for their actions in executing valid court order; and (5) debtor's state law claims were time-barred.

Affirmed.

Page 576.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Vaughn R. Walker, District Judge, Presiding.

Before ALARC ON, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

California law allows a judge to issue a warrant for failure to appear for a debtor's examination, Cal.Civ.Proc.Code § 708.170, and Dahlz points to nothing that establishes that the warrant issued for his arrest was illegal.

Dahlz's section 1983 claims against the creditor and his attorney fail because Dahlz cannot establish that they acted "under color of state law." The false arrest and imprisonment claims against the creditor and his attorney fail because a judge lawfully issued the bench warrant.

Dahlz's claims against the county and sheriff's department fail because he cannot establish that either had a "policy or custom" that violated his constitutional rights. Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Dahlz's detention does not violate constitutional standards of due process. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 145, 99 S.Ct. 2689, 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979).

The arresting officers were executing a valid court order and are entitled to absolute immunity for their actions. Coverdell v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 834 F.2d 758, 764-65 (9th Cir.1987).

The district court properly dismissed Dahlz's state claims, since Dahlz did not first present them to the appropriate state agency within six months of the accrual of the cause of action. Cal. Gov't Code § 911.2; Ridley v. City & County of San Francisco, 272 Cal.App.2d 290, 77 Cal.Rptr. 199, 202 (Cal.Ct.App.1969). Moreover, California law provides immunity to any peace officer who makes an arrest pursuant to a warrant "regular upon its face" and without malice. Cal. Civil Code § 43.55.

AFFIRMED.