Johnson v. Duffy
- Decided
- December 27, 1978
- Docket
- No. 76-1562
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,875 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding sheriff could be liable for his omission to perform duties imposed by state law that deprived the plaintiff of his property without due process — Lakeside-Scott v. Multnomah (2009)
- noting that to 11 establish a deprivation of a constitutional right by any particular individual, plaintiff must 12 allege that the individual, in acting or failing to act, was the actual and proximate cause of 13 his injury — Gonzalez v. Malhotra (2019)
- stating that a person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right if he does an act, participates in another’s act, or omits to perform an act he is legally required to do that causes the alleged deprivation — (PC) Roberts v. Department of the Treasury (2023)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge:
Johnson brought this civil rights action (42 U.S.C. § 1983) challenging the constitutional validity of the forfeiture of his accumulated earnings from work performed at an honor camp on the ground, among others, that the actions of the defendants deprived him of his property without due process of law. He initiated the suit as a class action, seeking both damages and declaratory relief, on behalf of himself and a class consisting of “all adult males or females who are presently incarcerated in any adult institution of the County of San Diego” who have suffered forfeitures of their prison earnings. The district court denied certification of the class, without prejudice to a later renewal of the motion, and it granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that the named defendants had not personally participated in the forfeiture of Johnson’s earnings and, in respect of defendant Athey, his refusal to return the forfeited sums to Johnson was pursuant to a reasonable and good faith belief that the forfeiture was valid. We uphold the district court’s certification ruling, but we reverse the judgment because Johnson made a prima facie showing of potential section 1983 liability based upon the defendants’ omission to perform duties imposed by state law that deprived Johnson of his property without due process.
Pursuant to an order of probation issued by the Superior Court of San Diego County, Johnson was committed on July 13,1973, to the custody of the sheriff for a period of one year. The County Classification Committee assigned him to Camp West Fork, a San Diego County honor camp under the jurisdiction of the San Diego County Probation Department. Under California’s statu- • tory scheme, regulating county jails, industrial farms, and camps, prisoners are assigned various work tasks for which they are paid small sums, not in excess of $2.00 per day for eight hours of work. The tasks include fire fighting, farming, and the manufacture of certain products. (Cal.Pen. Code §§ 4125-4131.) As the prisoner works, his honor camp account is credited with money earned from his work assignments. The prisoner can draw upon his account for commissary purchases, for paying debts to third persons, and for the support of his dependents. The net balance in his account is paid to him upon his discharge. (Cal.Pen.Code § 4126.)
Statutes cited
Cite this
Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740 (1978)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.