Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00737/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00737-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES LOCKE, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JULIE SETZER, JAKE CHATTERS, 

EDWARD POLLARD and DENNIS 

JONES, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________/

No. 2:08-cv-00737-JAM-GGH 

ORDER STAYING ACTION AND

DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

 Plaintiff James Locke (“Locke”) brought this action against 

Defendants Julie Setzer, Jake Chatters, Edward Pollard, and 

Dennis Jones for violations of his civil rights stemming from 

his termination from employment at Sacramento Superior Court. 

Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b), or 

Alternatively, Stay Action. Locke opposes the motion. For the 

1 

Case 2:08-cv-00737-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 07/09/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 

reasons stated below, Defendants’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART1. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 James Locke was hired by the Sacramento Superior Court 

Probate Unit as a temporary court investigator in May 2001. 

Compl. ¶ 11. Locke was subsequently promoted to permanent court 

investigator, Probate Supervisor, Probate Coordinator, and 

finally Probate Manager. Id. ¶¶ 12, 14, 15. On May 7, 2007, 

Locke’s employment was terminated Id. ¶ 27. Locke was not 

provided with a post-termination hearing. Id. ¶ 28. 

 Locke filed a complaint in state court on April 4, 2008 

alleging wrongful termination and denial of due process rights 

under the statutes and constitution of the State of California. 

Subsequently, Locke filed a complaint in federal court on April 

7, 2008. In his federal complaint, Locke alleges that he was 

entitled to a post-termination hearing under California 

Government Code § 71653. He further alleges that because he was 

denied a post-termination hearing, he was denied his right to 

procedural due process in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Defendants counter that because Locke was a management-level 

employee, he was not entitled to a post-termination hearing 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision 

without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 78-230(h).

2 

Case 2:08-cv-00737-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 07/09/08 Page 2 of 6
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

under § 71650, which exempts managerial employees from the 

court’s employment protection system. 

OPINION 

 Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a 

party to assert certain defenses by motion. These defenses are: 

1. lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, 2. lack of personal 

jurisdiction, 3. improper venue, 4. insufficient process, 5. 

insufficient service of process, 6. failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted, and 7. failure to join a party 

under Rule 19. 

 Defendants do not specify the particular defense upon which 

they base their motion to dismiss. In their answer to the 

complaint, Defendants admit that venue and jurisdiction are 

proper. Answer ¶¶ 1, 2. Defendants have not alleged that there 

was insufficient process, service of process, failure to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted, or failure to join a 

necessary party. Because Defendants have not raised any 

specific defense under Rule 12(b), their motion to dismiss must 

be denied. 

 Defendants also seek to have this Court stay this action 

pending resolution of Locke’s state court claim under either the 

Pullman or Colorado River doctrine. See Railroad Com. of Texas 

v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941); see also Colorado River 

3 

Case 2:08-cv-00737-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 07/09/08 Page 3 of 6
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

Water Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 

(1976). 

 “Pullman abstention is an extraordinary and narrow 

exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a 

controversy that is properly before it.” Porter v. Jones, 319 

F.3d 483, 492 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). 

However, Pullman abstention may be used in the discretion of the 

trial court when: 

(1) The complaint touches a sensitive area of social policy 

upon which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no 

alternative to its adjudication is open. (2) Such 

constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided if a 

definitive ruling on the state issue would terminate the 

controversy. (3) The possibly determinative issue of state 

law is doubtful. 

Smelt v. County of Orange, California, 447 F.3d 673, 679 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 

 Locke’s claim deals with a sensitive area of social policy. 

The state has a strong interest in determining the internal 

employment policies of its own courts. See Almodovar v. Reiner, 

832 F.2d 1138, 1140 (9th Cir. 1987) (“the ‘sensitive social 

policy’ prong... recognizes that abstention protects state 

sovereignty over matters of local concern, out of considerations 

of federalism, and out of scrupulous regard for the rightful 

independence of state governments.) (internal citation omitted). 

Considerations of comity weigh in favor of abstention.

 This Court could also avoid adjudicating constitutional 

issues by abstaining while the state court resolves the state 

4 

Case 2:08-cv-00737-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 07/09/08 Page 4 of 6
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

court issues. Locke’s claim turns on whether or not he was a 

manager under California law. If Locke is considered a manager 

under the statute, he would not be entitled to a posttermination hearing. If Locke was not deprived of an 

entitlement, the federal court would not have to decide whether 

he was denied due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the 

Court could potentially avoid deciding a constitutional 

question, it is appropriate to stay this matter. 

The definition of “managerial” in § 71650 is doubtful. The 

California state courts have not provided any indication of what 

it means to be a manager under § 71650. Guidance is especially 

required in this case because Locke, whose title was Probate 

Manager, whose previous titles were Probate Supervisor and 

Probate Coordinator, and who describes himself as a “supervisory 

court employee,” alleges that he was not in fact a manager. 

Compl. ¶ 20. Because the state courts should be allowed to 

determine the meaning of managerial, Pullman abstention is 

appropriate. 

 Locke claims that this Court cannot stay his First 

Amendment claims because they do not depend on resolution of 

state law issues. Locke’s claim is that in retaliation for the 

exercise of his First Amendment rights, he was denied a posttermination hearing. However, if the state court determines 

5 

Case 2:08-cv-00737-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 07/09/08 Page 5 of 6
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

that Locke was not entitled to a hearing in the first place, the 

Court could avoid addressing the First Amendment issue. 

Accordingly, the Court stays this action pending 

adjudication of the state law issues by the state court. 

Because the Court has exercised its discretion to abstain under 

the Pullman doctrine, it need not consider whether it might have 

done so under the Colorado River doctrine. 

ORDER 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss but GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Stay the 

Action. The parties shall notify this Court within 14 days of 

any resolution of, or final judgment or order in the matter 

involving the parties now pending in Sacramento County Superior 

Court. 

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 8, 2008 

6 

Case 2:08-cv-00737-GEB-GGH Document 28 Filed 07/09/08 Page 6 of 6