Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05227/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05227-7/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE AKIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PAUL DILLARD, M.A. SMELOSKY, D.A

CARMICHAEL, T.G. ARNESON, MARK

D. CASTELLAW, RICHARD KIRKLAND,

M.D. YAX, DOES ONE THROUGH TEN,

inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-05227 CRB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR

FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

Now pending before this Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended

Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For reasons stated at

oral argument, the motion is DENIED as to the first claim for relief. This claim asserts that

Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for exercising his right to free expression under the

First Amendment. Discovery will proceed ONLY as to the limited question of whether

Plaintiff’s alleged testimony in connection with an internal investigation at Pelican Bay State

Prison was given pursuant to his official duties. Defendants’ anticipated motion for partial

summary judgment as to that issue shall be argued on January 5, 2007.

The motion to dismiss is GRANTED with LEAVE TO AMEND as to

Plaintiff’s second claim for relief. Plaintiff may amend his complaint to clarify whether and 

Case 3:05-cv-05227-CRB Document 37 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\5227\order_granting_in_part_MTD.wpd 2

upon what ground a separate retaliation claim is stated against Defendant Kirkland.

As to all other claims for relief, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff

no longer seeks to maintain his state-law claims for defamation and related torts, and it is

clear from the statutory language that the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights

Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 3300 et seq.) does not create a cause of action against individual

defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2006 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05227-CRB Document 37 Filed 09/12/06 Page 2 of 2