Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01235/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01235-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Paul Melcher, Cynthia Salcido, and Jenny

Torres, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

City of San Luis, Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1235 PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel Council Member Defendants to answer

deposition questions about their motives for terminating Plaintiffs’ employment with

Defendant City of San Luis. Dkt. #68. Defendants assert a testimonial privilege related to

the doctrine of absolute legislative immunity. Dkt. #67.

Legislative immunity attaches to actions that public officials take in their legislative

capacities, but not to actions taken in an administrative or executive capacity. Bechard v.

Rappold, 287 F.3d 827, 829 (9th Cir. 2002). To determine whether an act is legislative, a

court must look at four factors: (1) whether the act involves ad hoc decisionmaking, or the

formulation of policy; (2) whether the act applies to a few individuals or to the public at

large; (3) whether the act is formally legislative in character; and (4) whether the act bears

the hallmarks of traditional legislation. Kaahumanu v. County of Maui, 315 F.3d 1215, 1220

(9th Cir. 2003). 

Case 2:06-cv-01235-DGC Document 74 Filed 08/24/07 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 -

“Whether an act is legislative turns on the nature of the act, rather than on the motive

or intent of the official performing it.” Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54 (1998). The

Council Member Defendants’ motives are therefore not relevant in determining whether they

are entitled to legislative immunity. 

Their motives may be relevant, however, in determining whether Defendant City of

San Luis is subject to liability. Municipalities may be held liable for unconstitutional

legislation even when the legislators themselves are entitled to absolute immunity. See

Bogan, 523 U.S. at 53. Courts have held that in determining whether a municipality is liable

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for enacting unconstitutional legislation, as alleged in this case,

legislators’ motives are relevant. See, e.g., Scott-Harris v. City of Fall River, 134 F.3d 427,

436 (1st Cir. 1997) (citing United States v. City of Birmingham, 727 F.2d 560, 564-65 (6th

Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 821; Smith v. Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055, 1064-65 (4th

Cir. 1982)), rev’d on other grounds, Bogan, 523 U.S. at 56. Because the motives of the

Council Member Defendants will be relevant to a resolution of the claim against the City

even if the Council Members ultimately are dismissed on grounds of legislative immunity,

the Court will permit Plaintiff to inquire into their motives in deposition. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Dkt. #68) is granted.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01235-DGC Document 74 Filed 08/24/07 Page 2 of 2