Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kasey F. HOFFMANN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LASSEN COUNTY; Julie M. Bustamante, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Plaintiff-Appellant Kasey F. Hoffman appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Lassen County and Julie M. Bustamante, the County Clerk-Recorder, in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. While he was incarcerated, Hoffman wrote Defendants a letter requesting a marriage license. Hoffman alleges that Defendants violated his substantive due process right when it denied his request on the ground that marriage applicants need to appear in person in the County Clerk’s office. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand.
There is no dispute that the letter Lassen County Deputy Clerk Michele J. Yderraga sent Hoffman was inaccurate or incomplete, in that the letter failed to mention that state law exempted incarcerated individuals from appearing in person. See Cal. Fam. Code §§ 359(a), 426. On this incomplete record, the district court properly granted summary judgment for Defendants on Hoffmann’s municipal liability claim under Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). The single denial letter alone is insufficient to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any policy or custom of Lassen County caused Hoffman to suffer constitutional injuries. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073–76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell); Navarro v. Block, 72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1995), as amended on denial of reh’g (9th Cir. 1996) (“Proof of random acts or isolated events is insufficient to establish custom.”).
However, Hoffman, who was pro se below, attempted to secure further discovery. Because questions remain as to Defendants’ policy and practices, including whether Defendants failed to take corrective action, we vacate and remand for the district court to order any other discovery necessary to develop the record. On remand, the district court will have discretion to allow plaintiff to proceed taking into account the inaccuracy in the letter sent to him. The district court may reconsider summary judgment after appropriate discovery.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
We award costs to Hoffman.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-16997
Decided: July 05, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)