U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1972

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided November 15, 1972 · Duniway, Ely, Per Curiam, Trask

469 F.2d 675; 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6702 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

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.

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision. The 17 that cite it most often are listed here.

Chavez-Salido v. Cabell (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1977)
League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Santa Ana (United States District Court for the Central District of California 1976)
Sethy v. Alameda Co. Water District (9th Cir. 1976)
Glenn R. Mahone and Harvey L. Mahone v. David S. Waddle, Albert B. Ellway, Jr. And the City of Pittsburgh (3d Cir. 1977)
United States v. State of South Carolina (District Court, D. South Carolina 1978)
Vasquez v. City of Reno (District Court, D. Nevada 1978)
Gourdine v. Ellis (District Court, D. South Carolina 1977)
Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service (District Court, N.D. Mississippi 1976)
Zisk v. City of Roseville (Cal. Ct. App. 1976)
Skyers v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ (District Court, S.D. New York 1976)
Wade v. Mississippi Cooperative Extension Service (5th Cir. 1976)
Redding v. Medica (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1975)
M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc. v. City of Davis (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1975)
Scott v. University of Delaware (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1974)
Maybanks v. Ingraham (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1974)
Black Bros. Combined of the City of Richmond, Inc. v. City of Richmond (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1974)
Richmond Black Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Richmond (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1974)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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. 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.

. An application for a three-judge court was also denied below, but that order is not properly before us.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.