Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00368/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00368-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS SMITH, MD and HOBERT

SMITH, MD,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTION, JERRY NEGRETE,

STEVE WILLIAMS, and DOES 1

through CC, inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-06-0368 AWI SMS

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

§425.16

This matter is before the court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case pursuant to

California Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 (the Anti-SLAPP Statute). Anti-SLAPP is a

California law which states that “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that

person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or

California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to

strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that

the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b).

The Amended Complaint seeks damages pursuant to 42. U.S.C. §1983 only; there are no

state claims. Doc. 18, Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs allege that Anti-SLAPP does not apply to

Case 1:06-cv-00368-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

federal claims under the logic of federal supremacy. Doc. 22, Opposition, at 2:6-9. Defendants

say that Anti-SLAPP is applicable to Section 1983, citing to Ninth Circuit precedent. Doc. 23,

Reply, at 2:4-15. The discussion of Anti-SLAPP in the cited case proceeds under the heading

“Whether California’s Anti-SLAPP law should be applied to the dismissal of LMSC’s state law

counterclaims.” United States ex rel. Newsham v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 190 F.3d

963, 970 (9th Cir. 1999), emphasis added. Review of other cases shows that “Although the

anti-SLAPP statute does apply to state law claims brought in federal court, it does not apply to

federal question claims in federal court because such application would frustrate substantive

federal rights.” Bulletin Displays, LLC v. Regency Outdoor Adver., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

64074, at *20-21 (N.D. Cal. 2006), citing Globetrotter Software, Inc. v. Elan Computer Group.

Inc., 63 F. Supp. 2d 1127, 1130 (N.D. Cal. 1999) and In re Bah, 321 B.R. 41, 46 (9th Cir. B.A.P.

2005). Anti-SLAPP may not be used against federal Section 1983 claims. 

Defendants’ briefing also argues that Plaintiffs’ suit is barred by Eleventh Amendment

immunity and that the Amended Complaint fails to identify a constitutionally protected right.

Doc. 18, Brief, at 8:1-13:10. Plaintiffs do not address these issues in opposition at all. In reply,

Defendants mention Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) for the first time in the briefing. Doc. 23, Reply,

at 3:10. The formal notice of motion states, in relevant part:

...move the Court for an order dismissing the amended complaint pursuant to California

Code of Civil Procedure §425.16 (Anti-SLAPP Statute). California’s anti-SLAPP statute

is applicable in federal cases. United States v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, 190

F.3d 963, 971 (9th Cir. 1999). The motion is made on the ground that the amended

complaint arises out of acts and statements by State employees that are protected by the

First Amendment of the United States Constitution and relate to matters of public interest

and speech connected to official proceedings.

Doc, 18, Notice, at 1:27-2:5. There is no notice regarding Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6) and the

motion will not be treated as one. Defendants’ arguments concerning Eleventh Amendment

immunity and failure to state a claim will not be addressed. 

Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00368-AWI -SMS Document 26 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 2