Section 1983 – Page 3

1. What facts must a plaintiff allege to state a claim for malicious prosecution against a California county and its sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, especially considering the heightened pleading standard this Court established in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)?

2. When a county sheriff is the country’s chief law enforcement officer, can a plaintiff hold a California County liable under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658,694 (1978), by pleading he was wrongfully prosecuted based on an investigation led by the sheriff?

Section 1983 Claim against Puyallup Officers Dismissed

March 27, 2019March 27, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lewis v. United States (W.D. Wash.):

16 Amended Complaint

42 Puyallup Defendants MSJ

48 Ps Motion for Leave to Dismiss

49 Ds Response

50 DCT Order

Eighth Circuit Decides Stanko v. Oglala Sioux Tribe

February 22, 2019Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Dismisses Section 1983 Complaint against New York Oneida Police

December 19, 2018December 19, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Alexander v. Nolan (N.D. N.Y.):

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Stanko v. Oglala Sioux Tribe [traffic ticket]

April 19, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Stanko First Brief

Tribe Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Police Killing Suit Filed for Suquamish Man’s Estate

April 11, 2018April 11, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Covarrubias v. City of Lakewood (W.D. Wash.):

Covarrubias v. City of Lakewood Complaint

Federal Court Dismisses Construction Contractor’s Section 1983 Action against Reno-Sparks Indian Colony

September 1, 2017September 1, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Forsythe v. Reno-Sparks Indian Colony (D. Nev.):

17 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

19 Wood Rodgers Inc Motion to Dismiss

24 Response to Tribe Motion

25 Response to Wood Rodgers Inc

27 Tribe Reply

28 Wood Rodgers Reply

38 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Section 1983 Action against Sandia Pueblo Police

August 30, 2017August 30, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in Crist v. Nix (D.N.M.):

28 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Last, Crist also names the Sandia Pueblo Police Department as a Defendant. The Sandia Pueblo Police Department is not a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. There is no remedy against the Sandia Pueblo Police Department under § 1983 and the Complaint fails to state a claim for relief against the Sandia Pueblo Police Department Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 63–64 (1989). In addition, although the Court does not reach the question, an issue exists as to whether Sandia Pueblo Tribal police officers act under color of state law and are subject to liability under § 1983. Compare Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F.3d 1159, 1174 (10th Cir. 2006) (tribal officers act under color of tribal law, not state law) and Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1348–49 (9th Cir. 1989) (tribal officials acting in concert with state officials act under color of state law).