Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01054/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01054-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREW McKERCHER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 18cv1054 JM(BLM)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO

AMEND; DENYING MOTION TO

DISMISS AS MOOT

v.

RON MORRISON,

Defendant.

Defendant Ron Morrison, Mayor of National City (“Mayor”), moves the court

to dismiss Plaintiff Andrew McKercher’s federal civil rights claim, to decline to

exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim, and to dismiss the action under qualified

immunity principles. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the

court grants Plaintiff’s motion for leave amend with 15 days leave to amend from the

date of entry of this order, and denies Mayor’s motion to dismiss as moot. 

BACKGROUND

Filed on May 25, 2018, the federal question Complaint alleges two claims for

relief: (1) violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and (2) violation

of the right to free expression guaranteed by the California Constitution. In broad

brush, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated federal and state constitutional rights

when he blocked him from accessing Defendant’s personal Facebook website in

retaliation for “criticizing him as an elected official.” (FAC ¶10(K)). 

Plaintiff is a resident of National City, California, and alleges that he “has

- 1 - 18cv1054

Case 3:18-cv-01054-JM-MSB Document 14 Filed 11/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

consistently spoken his mind whenever it appeared that the best interests of his fellow

residents and taxpayers were being subordinated to the whims of capricious, corrupt

City officials.” (FAC ¶1). By way of example, Plaintiff has commented on what he

perceives to be the Mayor’s preferential treatment of a National City councilman, the

City’s perceived pursuit of anti-immigrant policies, and the City providing preferential

treatment to business interests. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is being sued in

his personal capacity, while acting under color of state law. (FAC ¶4). 

Plaintiff alleges that the Mayor maintains his personal Facebook page “in order

to communicate with the public about official City matters.” (FAC ¶2). The official

National City Facebook page includes a statement at the bottom of that page: “For the

latest updates on National City send Ron Morrison a ‘friend’ request on Facebook.” 

(FAC Exh. I). Mayor allegedly “usesthe social-media platformto promote his mayoral

feats and to bask in the glory of his fans’ friendly feedback.” (FAC ¶1). Mayor

allegedly blocked Plaintiff as “‘pay back’ for past criticism and to prevent him from

publicizing his concerns in the future.” Id. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,

punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.

DISCUSSION

Leave to Amend

In his papers, and at the time of oral argument, Plaintiff represented that an

amended complaint with additional allegations would assist the court and parties to

determine the character of the forum at issue. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local

Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983) (The standard by which limitations on First

Amendment rights are evaluated depends on the character of the forumat issue.). Rule

15(a) provides that the “court should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so

requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). This policy is “to be applied with extreme liberality.”

Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 712 (9th Cir.2001). The

Supreme Court instructs district courts to consider the following in deciding whether

to grant leave to amend:

- 2 - 18cv1054

Case 3:18-cv-01054-JM-MSB Document 14 Filed 11/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay,

bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to

cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to

the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of

amendment, etc.—the leave soughtshould, asthe rules require, be “freely

given.”

Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). The consideration of undue prejudice to

the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,

316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Here, the court freely grants Plaintiff leave to amend. The case is in its infancy,

the First Amendment and qualified immunity issues are complex, and there is no

apparent prejudice to Mayor. Accordingly, the court grants Plaintiff 15 days leave to

amend from the date of entry of this order, and denies Mayor’s motion to dismiss as

moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 8, 2018

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 3 - 18cv1054

Case 3:18-cv-01054-JM-MSB Document 14 Filed 11/08/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3