Murray Weiner,plaintiff-Appellant v. San Diego County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that under California law a district attorney acts as a county officer for some administrative purposes and a state officer when deciding whether to prosecute an individual
• holding that since district 6 attorneys are state officers when exercising their prosecutorial functions, Section 1983 claims 7 against district attorneys fail because state is relevant actor, not county
• holding 26 that because district attorneys are state officers when exercising their prosecutorial functions, § 1983 claims against the county fail because the state is the relevant actor, not the county
• affirming summary judgment on § 1983 claim where 18 plaintiff failed to establish a violation of a constitutionally protected right
• stating more than state tort law violation needed to show 11 deprivation protected by Constitution or federal law
• affirming summary judgment on § 1983 claim where plaintiff failed to 17 establish a violation of a constitutionally protected right

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).