Ouma v. Clackamas County
3:12-cv-01465
D. Or.May 7, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Washie Ouma brings 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Clackamas County, Washington County, and John Does 1-9 for alleged false arrest and mistreatment.
- Arrests followed Ouma’s May 2010 arraignment, then a warrant issued for Sexual Abuse III after he failed to appear.
- Ouma was detained in Washington County jail (suicide-watch considerations, strip search, medical observation unit) and later transferred to Clackamas County jail.
- Arraignment letter addressed to a former address allegedly caused the error underlying the arrest warrant, but the warrant was based on Sexual Abuse III with probable cause.
- Plaintiff identifies no named individuals for John Does 1-3 and cannot prove a county policy or custom caused the alleged rights violations.
- The court granted summary judgment to both counties, dismissing all claims for lack of constitutional violation or identifiable policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| False arrest against John Does 1-3 | Ouma argues misaddressed arraignment letter caused arrest | John Does remain unidentified; no liability without identity | John Does 1-3 dismissed |
| Monell liability for strip search | County policy violated Fourth Amendment | No Fourth Amendment violation; general population status established | No constitutional violation; Washington County granted summary judgment on this claim |
| Arraignment-letter due process against Clackamas County | Due process violated by missing arraignment letter | No right to receive arraignment letter; warrant basis remains valid | First claim dismissed; no due process violation established |
Key Cases Cited
- Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1992) (due process for deprivation under municipal liability standards)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden shifting)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy or final policymaker action)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (liability attaches to final policy-makers or official policy)
- Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 132 S. Ct. 1510 (U.S. 2012) (strip search standards for general population inmates; relevance to Fourth Amendment)
- Bull v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (precludes automatic application of general rule to arrestees not in general population)
- Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) (warrant affidavits and false information may lead to Fourth Amendment liability)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (misidentification and detention context in warrant scenarios)
- United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (U.S. 1979) (due process implications of agency regulations relied upon by individuals)