## Facts

- Thomas Anderson accidentally rear-ended Charles Warner’s pickup truck while both were driving to a local parade in Mendocino County, California.
- Warner, the county jail commander (off duty, out of uniform, in a personal vehicle), approached Anderson’s car, opened the door, and repeatedly struck Anderson in the face and neck, briefly rendering him unconscious.
- Anderson reported hearing Warner’s wife tell bystanders “he is a cop,” and Anderson asked Warner if he was a cop; Anderson stated Warner acknowledged he was and instructed witnesses to stay back.
- A probation officer associated with Warner told bystanders the incident was “police business” and urged them to disperse; Anderson stated Warner did not correct this assertion.
- After regaining consciousness, Anderson observed Warner, the probation officer, and Warner’s wife holding up their hands and directing the crowd to disperse because it was a police matter and Warner was an officer.
- Anderson sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force, alleging Warner acted under color of state law, and asserted related California negligence claims against the County and Sheriff’s Department (hiring, supervision, and investigation).
- The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants; Anderson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an off-duty, out-of-uniform jail commander who assaulted a motorist acted “under color of state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when he and associates invoked police authority and controlled bystanders.
2. Whether the County and Sheriff’s Department could be held liable under California negligence theories for hiring, supervision, or investigation related to the incident.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for Warner on the § 1983 claim.
- The court held a reasonable jury could find Warner acted under color of state law because evidence showed he invoked official status and used perceived authority to influence bystanders during and immediately after the assault.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the County and Sheriff’s Department on the state-law negligence claims for insufficient evidence of actionable negligent hiring, supervision, or investigation causing Anderson’s injuries.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings against Warner on the federal claim.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant acts under color of state law when he exercises power made possible by state authority or purports to act in an official capacity.
- Off-duty status and lack of uniform are not dispositive; the key inquiry is whether the officer invoked or used official authority (including identifying himself as an officer, treating the encounter as police business, or directing others as if exercising official power).
- On summary judgment, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; if a reasonable jury could find color of law, the claim proceeds to trial.
- Governmental liability on state-law negligence theories requires evidence of a duty breach and causation; conclusory allegations of negligent hiring, supervision, or investigation without supporting proof do not create a triable issue.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that evidence of an off-duty jail commander invoking police authority and directing bystanders could support a jury finding of action under color of state law, reviving the § 1983 excessive-force claim against him, while leaving intact summary judgment for the County defendants on related state-law negligence claims.


Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2006)