Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Camboni v. Symington

filed: September 27, 1995.

ROBERT CAMBONI, HUSBAND; SHIRLEY CAMBONI, WIFE, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
FIFE SYMINGTON, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION, AN ARIZONA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; JEAN PERKINS, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; KEITH HENDRICKS, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; PAT RICHMOND, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; ROBIN BARKER, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; DOUGLAS COLEMAN, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; ED COX, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; PAUL PERKINS, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; MICHAEL LEE, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; GLENN GIMBUT, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; GEORGE HOFFMAN, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; JIM NAKAGAWA, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; RICK WILLIAMS, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; LAURA ISAACS, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; FRANK KENNEMUR, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; GIL VERLEY, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; BRIAN WYATT, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; MICHAEL SCHAFFER, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; TERRY SECOR, JOINTLY & SEVERALLY AS AN INDIVIDUAL; JOYCE BROWN; PINAL COUNTY; LIONEL D. RUIZ; SANDIE SMITH; JIMMY B. BAKER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; C. A. Muecke, District Judge, Presiding; D.C. No. CV-93-02086-CAM.

Browning, Goodwin, and O'Scannlain, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Robert and Shirley Camboni appeal pro se the district court's (1) dismissal of Arizona Governor Symington, Pinal County, the Pinal County Prosecutor and members of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors, and (2) summary judgment for the City of Apache Junction, several city officials and employees, and several private defendants in the Cambonis' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants violation their constitutional rights by enforcing the City's litter and sign ordinances and the state public nuisance law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 1994) (summary judgment); Everest & Jennings v. American Motorists Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 226, 228 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissal for failure to state a claim), and affirm.*fn1

I

Dismissal

The Cambonis contend that the district court erred by dismissing Arizona Governor Symington, Pinal County, the Pinal County Prosecutor, and members of the Pinal County Board of Supervisors. This contention lacks merit.

The district court properly dismissed Governor Symington because state officials are not subject to liability under section 1983 unless they play an affirmative part in the alleged deprivation of constitutional rights. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 568 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 377, 46 L. Ed. 2d 561, 96 S. Ct. 598 (1976)).

The district court properly dismissed Pinal County and the members of the Board of Supervisors because a local government and its officials are not subject to liability under section 1983 based on a theory of respondeat superior. See Monell v. Department of Social Serv., 436 U.S. 658, 691-94, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978). The district court also properly dismissed the Pinal County Prosecutor because he is entitled to absolute immunity for his actions "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430, 47 L. Ed. 2d 128, 96 S. Ct. 984 (1976). In addition, the district court properly dismissed the Cambonis' conspiracy claims against the county defendants because mere conclusory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. See Ivey v. Board of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by deeming timely the county defendants' motion to dismiss.

II

Summary Judgment

The Cambonis contend that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for the private party defendants and the City of Apache Junction defendants. This contention lacks merit.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the private party defendants because mere conclusory allegations of a conspiracy without more, are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. See id.; Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir. 1988).

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the City, City Manager Lee, Assistant City Manager Hoffman, Director Nakagawa, Zoning Administrator Issacs, and the City Council Members because a local government and its officials are not subject to liability under section 1983 based on a theory of respondeat superior. See Monell, 436 U.S. at 691-94. The district court properly granted summary judgment for City Attorney Gimbut because he is entitled to absolute immunity for his actions "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process." See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430. The district court's summary judgment for Mayor Perkins, and Committee Members Kennemur and Verley because ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.