Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

Type

Opinion of the Court

Filed

June 19, 2002

Case

Mendez v. County of Los Angeles

Case status

Decided

Source No authoring judge could be established for this writing, either from provider metadata or from the signature line of the court's published opinion. Benchlight shows the gap rather than guessing at an author.

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

ORDER The Memorandum filed May 10, 2002, is amended as follows: At page 3, line 4, at the end of the second full paragraph, insert the following sentence: “Based on the totality of the circumstances, a jury could conclude that Gray acted under color of state law.” With this amendment, the petition for rehearing is denied and the petition for rehearing en banc is rejected. Fed. R.App. P. 35, 40. AMENDED MEMORANDUM * The district court erred in granting Gray’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that he did not act under color of state law during the car chase. A police officer acts under color of law when he “purport[s] or pretend[s] to act in the performance of his ... official duties.” McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir.2000). This is true even when the officer is “pursuing his own goals and [i]s not in any way subject to control by [his employer].” Huffman v. County of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 1054, 1058 (9th Cir.1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Gray purported to act in the performance of his official duties: He identified himself as a law enforcement officer by flashing his badge and yelling that he was a sheriffs deputy. See Huffman, 147 F.3d at 1058 (off…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.