green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 12×
81.9 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2024–2026 · 3 courts ·
…e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.
at p. 1006
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Shuang Chen; and Jianfei Ye v. City & County of Honolulu; Honolulu Police Department; Lorraine Iwamasa, in her individual and official capacities; and Unnamed Male Detective
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kivani Thompson v. City of Beaverton
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Beau Hawkes v. Gregg K. Katayama, et al.
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mario Alberto Hernandez v. Chandler, City of, et al.
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to 3 state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional 4 right involved.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Stevens v. Gonzalez
however, we can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Meiller v. Attorney General of Boise, ID
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Meiller v. Attorney General of Boise, ID
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hill v. Wendt
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Martinez v. Pierce County
because the appellants have failed to state facts that constitute the infringement of a 7 protected right, their 1983 claim must necessarily fail
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Demos v. Holbrook
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate 16 investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another 17 recognized constitutional right involved.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Kaswatuka v. DFW Airport Police
however, we can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Colombo v. Palo Alto Unified School District
e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate 6 investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized 7 constitutional right involved.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonsalves v. Alm
See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that allegations of inadequate investigation are not sufficient to state a due process claim).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pearline Jackson v. The State and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, et al.
Cal. May 21, 2021). 1 Investigation 2 To the extent Plaintiff is trying to hold anyone liable for an independent, unspecified 3 constitutional violation based upon an allegedly inadequate investigation, there is no such claim. 4 See Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[W]e can find no 5 instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil 6 rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.”); Page v. Stanley, 7 2013 WL 2456798 , at *8–9 (C.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eusida Blidgen, Individually as Parent and Guardian of her Children, Minors 1-5, et al. v. Town of Braintree, et al.
Mass. 2011) (quoting Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir.1985)). plausibility standard is not as onerous as a “‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Adkisson v. Joe Lombardo, et al.
Gomez v. 3 Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Crago v. Sacramento County Towing Enforcement Supervisor
Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985); see Fink v. 28 Ohannessian, 2023 WL 4680782 , at *9 (C.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore v. Metro Police Dept.
While a single occurrence will not suffice to show the 16 existence of a policy, one may be inferred from widespread practices or “evidence of repeated 17 constitutional violations for which the errant municipal officers were not discharged or 18 reprimanded.” Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1349 (9th Cir.1992). 19 The Ninth Circuit has clearly stated that an inadequate police investigation is insufficient 20 to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved. 21 Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez v. Chandler, City of
Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) 17 (“[W]e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as 18 sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional 19 right involved.”). 20 Hernandez’s claim based on Defendant Officers alleged failures to intervene in 21 and/or investigate the alleged “robbery” of his residence, even if plausible under the facts 22 alleged, fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim under § 1983, and the 23 Court will dismiss this claim. 24 E.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sternberg v. Warneck
See Devereaux v. Abbey, 263 F.3d 1070, 1075 (9th Cir. 2001) (stating “there is no 2 constitutional due process right . . . to have [an] investigation carried out in a particular way”); 3 Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The appellants claim that the right 4 infringed was a due process right to have a full and fair police investigation into violence done 5 against themselves or their children.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CHAMBLISS v. BAGGETT
Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985); Beard v. O’Neal, 728 F.2d 894, 899 (7th Cir. 1984); see also, e.g., Stringer v. Doe, 503 F. App’x 888 , 890–91 (11th Cir. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Morrow v. Armistead
A plaintiff lacks standing to challenge a decision not to prosecute a crime "when he himself is neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution," Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 , 619 (1973), and an inadequate investigation is not sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless another constitutional right was involved, Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lowrey v. Portis
Equal Protection “The failure to conduct a full and fair investigation and prosecution of an alleged crime does not state a claim unless there is a violation of another recognized constitutional right.” Smallwood v. McDonald, 805 F.2d 1036 (6th Cir. 1986) (citing Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curium)) (unpublished table decision).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Turner v. Gopal
See Devereaux, 263 F.3d 1070 , 1075 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is 28 no constitutional due process right to have . . . [an] investigation carried out in a particular way.”); 1 Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[W]e can find no instance 2 where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights 3 claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.”); Page v. Stanley, 2013 4 WL 2456798 , at *8–9 (C.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nguyen v. Dewey
She now attempts to sue each officer she contacted in these attempts. 7 As the Court detailed in its last order of dismissal, an allegation that police officers 8 failed to investigate is not sufficient to state a civil rights claim “unless there was another 9 recognized constitutional right involved.” Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th 10 Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nguyen v. Dewey
An allegation that police officers failed to investigate is not 26 sufficient to state a civil rights claim “unless there was another recognized constitutional 27 right involved.” Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hendrix v. City of Madera
See Devereaux, 263 F.3d 1070 , 1075 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]here is no 25 constitutional due process right to have ... [an] investigation carried out in a particular way.”); 26 Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[W]e can find no instance 27 where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim 28 unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.”); Page v. Stanley, 2013 WL 1 2456798, at *8–9 (C.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Escamilla v. Oboyle
To the extent plaintiff now attempts to allege a violation of his due 12 process rights based on an unauthorized or inadequate investigation, his claim is not cognizable. 13 See Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[W]e can find no instance where 14 the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim 15 unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.” (citation omitted)). 16 IV.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hendrix v. City of Madera
See Devereaux, 263 F.3d 1070 , 1075 (9th Cir. 22 2011) (“[T]here is no constitutional due process right to have ... [an] investigation carried out in a 23 particular way.”); Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[W]e 24 can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to 25 state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.”); 26 Page v. Stanley, 2013 WL 2456798 , at *8–9 (C.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gil v. Doe
Consequently, there is no violation of a constitutional right and the alleged inadequate investigation is insufficient “to state a civil rights claim.” Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Welborn
Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 6 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fatai v. City and County Honolulu
No. 271-1 at 12 (citing Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam)), the instant case concerns far more than inaccuracies and/or recklessness.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Richards v. County of San Bernardino
See Devereaux, 263 F.3d at 1075 (“[T]here is no constitutional due process right to have . . . [an] investigation carried out in a particular way.”); Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (“[W]e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Christine Chang v. Ezery Beauchamp
See Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993) (elements of a § 1983 claim for due process); Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (allegations of inadequate investigation by law enforcement will not support a § 1983 claim); Ryan v. Cal. Interscholastic Fed’n.-San Diego Section, 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 798, 816 (Ct. App. 2001) (claim for due process under the California Constitution requires that plaintiff “identify a statutorily conferred benefit or interest”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Van Hook v. State of Idaho
Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted) (“The police have no affirmative obligation to investigate a crime in a particular way or to protect one citizen from another even when one citizen deprives the other of liberty of property.”); Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1005-06 (9th Cir. 1985) (“[W]e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: DEFENDANTS DAVID W.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Liang v. Stockton Police Dept.
Mass. 2011) (quoting Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th 28 Cir. 1985). “[I]t is well established that a prosecutor has absolute immunity for the decision to 1 prosecute,” as well as “for the decision not to prosecute.” Roe v. City and County of San 2 Francisco, 109 F.3d 578, 583 (9th Cir. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Evelyn Martinez v. City of Los Angeles
(2×)
Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per 15 curiam) (“[W]e can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate 16 investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim . . . .”); see also Sexual Sin De Un 17 Abdul Blue v. City of Los Angeles, No. 2:09-7573-PA (JEM), 2010 WL 890172 , at *6 18 (C.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Holscher v. United States
Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding there is no claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to investigate).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacobs v. MA State Police
Mass. 2011) (quoting Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir.1985)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Marble v. Missoula County
(Doc. 9 at 25 (citing Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); Hageman v. Bates, No. CV-06-09 MDWM, 2007 WL 927584 , at *8 (D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brakeall v. Bieber
The Eighth Circuit has held that inadequate investigation is not sufficient to “state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved[.]” Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069 , 1079 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006, n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Alejandro Sanchez v. County of Stanislaus
Likewise, “an inadequate investigation alone 16 does not ‘involve[] the deprivation of a protected right,’ but must involve ‘another recognized 17 constitutional right.’” Ogunrinu v. City of Riverside, 79 F. App’x 961 , 962–63 (9th Cir. 2003)2 18 (quoting Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)) (pointing to a “police failure to 19 protect against housing discrimination” as an example where a claim of an inadequate police 20 investigation is properly anchored to an alleged violation of a recognized constitutional right). 21 Here, plaintiffs have alleged relate…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schrock v. Gordon
See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989) (“[A] State’s failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.”); Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (no right to police investigation); Oliver v. Collins, 914 F.2d 56, 60 (5th Cir. 1990) (no constitutional right to have someone criminally prosecuted); Sattler v. Johnson, 857 F.2d 224, 226-227 (4th Cir. 1988) (same).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stuckey v. Trump
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Feb. 4, 1992) (citing Gomez v. Whitney, 8 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985)); see also Chapman v. Musich, 726 F.2d 405 (8th Cir. 1984). 9 There is “no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to 10 state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved.” 11 Gomez, 757 F.2d at 1006 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ortiz v. Ortiz
Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985); see also 15 Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 768 (2005) (“benefit that a third party 16 may receive from having someone else arrested for a crime generally does not trigger protections 17 under the Due Process Clause”); Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973) (“a citizen 18 lacks standing to contest the policies of the prosecuting authority when he himself is neither 19 prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Adams v. FBI San Francisco Field Office Supervisor and Agents
West, 487 U.S. at 48 ; see also Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284 (1980); 15 Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Keyter v. 230 Government Officers
Police Dept., 40 F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir.1994); Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir.1985).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ogunrinu v. City of Riverside
Ai inadequate investigation alone does not “involve[] the deprivation of a protected right,” but must involve “another recog nized constitutional right.” Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
William Snow Hume v. Michael C. Maynard Guy N. Ormes
See Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep't, 839 F.2d 621 , 624 (9th Cir.1988); Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam). 5 Here, Hume's allegation that defendants had threatened to arrest him did not implicate a protected federal right because a mere "threat to do an act prohibited by the Constitution is [not the] equivalent to doing the act itself." Gaut v. Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir.1987) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sudan Provost v. Barry Dillard, Police Officer Badge No: 5792, 11th Precinct
Gomez v. Whitney, 757 F.2d 1005, 1006 (9th Cir.1985) (per curiam); see also Smith v. Ross, 482 F.2d 33, 36-37 (6th Cir.1973) (per curiam) (failure to act due to racial animus sufficient to state a civil rights claim).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bartolo Gomez Sr Parent/prsnl Rep of Estate of Bartolo Gomez, Jr., Deceased, and Janice Gomez Parent/prsnl Rep of Estate of Bartolo Gomez, Jr., Deceased
v.
William Whitney, Charles Gonzales and Riva Cook, and City of Winslow, Walter Maule, Sterling Norgaard and Frank Kramer
v.
William Whitney, Charles Gonzales and Riva Cook, and City of Winslow, Walter Maule, Sterling Norgaard and Frank Kramer
83-2670.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 9, 1985.
Cited by 36 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (2)
Bartolo GOMEZ Sr Parent/Prsnl Rep of Estate of Bartolo
Gomez, Jr., Deceased, and Janice Gomez
Parent/Prsnl Rep of Estate of Bartolo
Gomez, Jr., Deceased,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
William WHITNEY, Charles Gonzales and Riva Cook, Defendants,
and
City of Winslow, Walter Maule, Sterling Norgaard and Frank
Kramer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 83-2670.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Oct. 3, 1984.
Decided April 9, 1985.
Richard M. Grimsrud, Wilson, Gaylord & Grimsrud, Flagstaff, Ariz., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Warner G. Leppin, Leppin & Patton, Winslow, Ariz., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before WALLACE, KENNEDY and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
Bartolo Gomez, Sr. and his family brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the City of Winslow and its employees Walter Maule, Sterling Norgaard and Frank Kramer. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the grounds that the statute of limitations had run on the plaintiffs' claims and that the plaintiffs failed to state a cognizable Sec. 1983 claim. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, Lone Ranger Television, Inc. v. Program Radio Corp., 740 F.2d 718, 720 (9th Cir.1984), and affirm.
2
Appellants' son, Bartolo Gomez, Jr., who was of Mexican and Hopi-Indian descent, died as the result of an apparent accident while trespassing on a construction site with two other juveniles. The police conducted a cursory investigation and decided not to recommend that any charges be brought against the decedent's companions. For almost two years after his son's death, Bartolo Gomez, Sr. attempted to persuade the police department to re-open the investigation. When these efforts failed, Gomez brought this action alleging that his and his family's civil rights had been violated by the police department's inadequate investigation.
3
A prerequisite to recovery under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, is that the plaintiff prove that the defendants deprived him of a right secured by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 284, 100 S.Ct. 553, 558, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980). A threshold question in this appeal, then, is whether or not the appellants' claim involves the deprivation of a protected right.
4
The appellants claim that the right infringed was a due process right to have a full and fair police investigation into violence done against themselves or their children. However, we can find no instance where the courts have recognized inadequate investigation as sufficient to state a civil rights claim unless there was another recognized constitutional right involved. See, e.g., Smith v. Ross, 482 F.2d 33 (6th Cir.1973) (police failure to protect against housing discrimination).
5
Because the appellants have failed to state facts that constitute the infringement of a protected right,[1] their Sec. 1983 claim must necessarily fail, and the district court was consequently correct in granting summary judgment against them.[2] The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.
1
Appellants have made no showing that the alleged failure to investigate was because of the victim's race (Mexican and Indian) or any other facts that would implicate violation of equal protection rights
2
Because we decide that the appellants have not stated a cognizable Sec. 1983 claim, we need not reach the statute of limitations issue, or whether there existed material factual questions making summary judgment inappropriate