Case ID: f-appx_567/html/0498-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rick PRANCEVIC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny MACAGNI, Individually and as Chief of Police for the Santa Maria Police Department; City of Santa Maria, Defendants-Appellants, County of Santa Barbara, a municipal corporation; David Saunders, Individually; Ann Bramsen, Individually, Defendants. Rick Prancevic, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Saunders, Individually; Ann Bramsen, Individually, Defendants-Appellants, Danny Macagni, Individually and as Chief of Police for the Santa Maria Police Department; City of Santa Maria; County of Santa Barbara, a municipal corporation, Defendants.
    Nos. 11-56798, 11-56953.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Feb. 4, 2014.
    Filed April 4, 2014.
    Michael Andrew Mcgill, Esquire, Russell M. Perry, Esquire, Lackie Dammeier & McGill APC, Upland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Bruce Daniel Praet, Ferguson, Praet & Sherman, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Mary Pat Barry Jake Stoddard, Esquire, Santa Barbara, CA, for Defendants.
    Before: PREGERSON and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and AMON, Chief District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Because the parties are familiar with the factual background and procedural history of this ease, we need not discuss them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review de novo a district court’s order denying summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Rodis v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 558 F.3d 964, 968 (9th Cir.2009). “[0]ur review is limited to the ‘purely legal issue whether the facts [adduced by the plaintiff] ... support a claim of clearly established law.’” Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094, 1098 (9th Cir.2011) (citations omitted).

(1) We affirm the denial of qualified immunity with respect to Defendants Danny Macagni, Chief of the Santa Maria Police Department, and the City of Santa Maria. The evidence adduced by Plaintiff Rick Prancevic would support a finding that Chief Macagni banned him from the police department, and did so to punish him for protected speech. Such conduct would violate Prancevic’s clearly established First Amendment rights. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1319 (9th Cir.1989) (plaintiff “had a clearly established right to be free of intentional retaliation by government officials based upon that individual’s constitutionally protected expression”). We cannot decide in this qualified immunity appeal whether there would be a First Amendment violation even if the facts submitted by Chief Macagni and the City were determined to be true. See Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir.2001).

(2) We likewise affirm the denial of qualified immunity with respect to the Santa Barbara County District Attorney (“DA”) officials. Prancevic has adduced evidence that would support a finding that his First Amendment protected speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the DA’s decision to transfer his work assignment from Santa Maria to Lompoc. For example, the Chief Trial Deputy of the DA’s office testified that Defendant David Saunders was “infuriated” by Prancevic’s letter, and “[i]n the meeting,” in which Prancevic’s transfer was ordered, “the context was obviously punishment.” The DA officials are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case. See Eng v. Cooley, 552 F.3d 1062, 1071 (9th Cir.2009); Yartzoff v. Thomas, 809 F.2d 1371, 1376 (9th Cir.1987) (holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action). Again, whether there would be a First Amendment violation, or qualified immunity, on the defendants’ version of the facts are issues we cannot decide at this juncture.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.