DEON BOUGERE v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Filed 7/11/06
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| DEON BOUGERE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. | B183930 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC313760) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Gregory W. Alarcon, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Barry S. Zelner, Barry S. Zelner and Charles Fonarow for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Jennifer A.D. Lehman, Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and Respondent.
The question presented in this civil rights case is whether the Los Angeles County Sheriff acts on behalf of the State of California or the County of Los Angeles in setting policies pertaining to the assignment of inmates within the Los Angeles County jail. The answer to this question depends on whether the Sheriff's action in this regard can be characterized as a law enforcement function, in which case the Sheriff acts as a state official and is therefore immune from liability under title 42 United States Code section 1983 (section 1983), or whether it should be characterized as merely a custodial function, making the Sheriff a local policymaker subject to suit under section 1983.
There is a clear split of authority on this issue between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, finding that such action is only a custodial function (Streit v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2001) 236 F.3d 552 (Streit) and Cortez v. County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2002) 294 F.3d 1186 (Cortez)), and the California Supreme Court's more recent decision (Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 32 Cal.4th 820, 829 (Venegas)), characterizing similar activity as a law enforcement function. Following Venegas, we conclude that the Sheriff was carrying out a law enforcement function in setting policies pertaining to the placement of inmates at the county jail and therefore was acting as a state official immune from section 1983 liability. We therefore affirm the judgment of dismissal in favor of the County following the sustaining of the County's demurrer without leave to amend.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The entirety of the factual allegations presented in this case is the following: While appellant was incarcerated at the county jail, he received threats against his life by other inmates due to his national ancestry, ethnicity, origin and race; despite his repeated requests to be moved to another facility, jail employees refused to move him; and he ultimately suffered injuries inflicted by inmates.[1]
Appellant sued the County for his injuries. The only cause of action at issue in this appeal is appellant's claim for violation of his civil rights under section 1983, alleging that he was deprived of â€
