Page 3
Ninth Circuit:
§1983 Suit Doesn’t Lie Against D.A.’s Office Investigators
Opinion Explains That They Were Acting Under Federal, Not State, Authority
By a MetNews Staff Writer
An action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 cannot be maintained against two investigators for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office who are accused of barging into a home of two Vietnamese refugees and interrogating them about their Social Security disability benefits because the officers were acting under federal supervision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held.
The statute provides, in part, that “[e]very person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State…causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress….”
Defendants Dulce Sanchez and William Villasenor were assigned to the state/federal Cooperative Disability Investigations (“CDI”) unit that was investigating Social Security fraud at the time they interacted with plaintiffs Anh Thai and Don Doan.
Summary Judgment Affirmed
In an opinion filed Wednesday, affirming a summary judgment in favor of the county granted by District Court Judge William Q. Hayes of the of the Southern District of California, Ninth Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta said:
“Because the federal government was the source of authority under which the task force was implemented and because the officers’ day-to-day work was supervised by a federal officer, we conclude the officers were acting under color of federal, rather than state, law.” Ikuta noted that the Ninth Circuit has “not yet squarely addressed when state officers are acting under color of federal law” but, guided by decision of other circuits, concluded:
“In general, where the source of authority for the program is federal in nature and the state officials’ participation in the challenged conduct is subject to the immediate control of a federal supervisor, those officials act under color of federal law, not under color of state law.”
Relevant Factors
She noted that the CDI unit was set up pursuant to federal law, Sanchez and Villasenor acted under the command of a federal agent, and, although their paychecks were issued by the county, the federal government made reimbursement for the payments.
The jurist wrote:
“Plaintiffs provide no evidence that ‘the authority of the state was exerted in enforcing the law’ such that the officers’ conduct is fairly attributable to the state….Rather, Sanchez and Villasenor engaged in the conduct that allegedly deprived Thai and Doan of their rights while operating within a federal program, under the daily supervision and immediate control of a federal officer, and therefore acted under color of federal law.”
She added that “Sanchez’s and Villasenor’s use of some state practices or imperfect implementation of federal practices does not alter the fact that they were implementing federal authority under the supervision of a federal agent.”
In a memorandum opinion—signed by Ikuta and by Ninth Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland, joined by District Court Judge Wesley L. Hsu of the Central District of California, sitting by designation—other contentions by Thai and Doan were also rejected.
The plaintiffs contested a $6,760.00 sanction imposed in 2023 by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on their Pennsylvania lawyer, Alexandra Manbeck. Hayes’s order must be affirmed, the judges said, “because counsel offered no compelling reason why her clients failed to obey discovery orders after the district court granted defendants’ motion to compel.”
They declared that no claim lies under 42 U.S.C §1985 which proscribes conspiracies “for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws.” The judges said that “on plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Because plaintiffs failed to show that any defendant was motivated by discriminatory animus.”
A claim under §1986 for failing to prevent a violation of §1985 necessarily fails because §1985 was not breached, they reasoned.
Summary judgment was properly granted on defendants on the Monell claims, the three jurists found, “because plaintiffs failed to point to any policy, practice, or custom of the County that was the moving force behind the alleged violations of their constitutional rights.”
Claims under California law were barred, they said, based on lack of compliance with the Government Claims. Act.
The decisions come in Thai v. County of Los Angeles, 23-55326.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company