Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00583/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00583-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Oakland
Defendant
Lena Edmund
Defendant
Alonzo Emerson
Plaintiff
Melonie Levine
Defendant
Charles Mayfield
Plaintiff
Eddie Owens
Plaintiff
Rufus Robbins
Defendant
James Shum
Defendant
Malvina Stephens
Defendant
Wayne Tucker
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REV. CHARLES MAYFIELD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-0583 EMC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docket No. 38)

Plaintiffs Rev. Charles Mayfield, Rev. Alonzo Emerson, and Rev. Eddie Owens sued

Defendants the City of Oakland, Chief of Police Wayne Tucker, and various other individuals on the

executive board of Oakland Police and Chaplains Together (“OPACT”), including the OPACT

coordinator Melonie Levine. Thereafter, the City Defendants -- consisting of the City, Chief Tucker

and Ms. Levine -- filed a motion to dismiss, which the remaining individual defendants joined. The

Court granted the motion on August 6, 2007, but gave Plaintiffs leave to amend. See Docket No. 34. 

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which largely contained the same factual allegations as

the prior complaint that was dismissed. The City Defendants again moved to dismiss, and the

motion was joined by the remaining individual defendants. See Docket No. 41. On October 31,

2007, the Court held a hearing on the second motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs failed to appear at the

hearing, and the Court took the matter under submission.

Having considered the parties’ briefs and accompanying motions, the Court hereby

GRANTS the motion to dismiss. 

Case 3:07-cv-00583-EMC Document 47 Filed 11/02/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

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

2

I. DISCUSSION

In the second amended complaint, Rev. Mayfield and Rev. Emerson contend that their due

process rights were violated based on the failure to provide them with full chaplaincy status. 

Although not entirely clear, it appears that Rev. Mayfield also asserts that his due process rights

were violated when he was terminated. Rev. Owens does not make any claim for violation of due

process. See Opp’n at 2 (“The Plaintiffs want to make it clear that it is Mayfield and Emerson that

are the parties seeking due process relief, not Owens.”). Rev. Owens’s only claim is that he suffered

retaliation because of the exercise of his free speech and/or petition rights. Defendants have moved

to dismiss both the due process claims and the retaliation claim.

A. Due Process

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that it is not clear from the second amended

complaint whether Rev. Mayfield and Rev. Emerson are alleging a violation of procedural or

substantive due process or both. Regardless, whether the claim is based on procedural and/or

substantive due process, Rev. Mayfield and Rev. Emerson must establish a deprivation of a

constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. See Hufford v. McEnaney, 249 F.3d 1142,

1150 (9th Cir. 2001) (noting that there must be a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty

or property interest in a procedural due process claim); Foley v. Bates, No. C 06-7294 PJH, 2007

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27390, at *33 (N.D. Mar. 30, 2007) (noting that, for a substantive due process

claim, a plaintiff must show a deprivation of life, liberty, or property). The Court concludes that the

reverends have failed to establish a deprivation of such an interest.

1. Rev. Mayfield

Rev. Mayfield argues first that his due process rights were violated based on the failure to

provide him with full chaplaincy status. The Ninth Circuit, however, has indicated that, “[u]ntil

someone actually receives a promotion, or at least a binding assurance of a forthcoming promotion,

he cannot claim a property interest in the promotion.” Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, 147 F.3d 867,

873 (9th Cir. 1998). Rev. Mayfield has failed to allege that he had any legal assurance of a

promotion to full chaplaincy status or that there are any substantive limitations on Defendants’

denial of such status. Therefore, he has failed to demonstrate a cognizable property interest. 

Case 3:07-cv-00583-EMC Document 47 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

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

3

Moreover, although some courts have suggested that there could be a property interest in a volunteer

position if there were significant benefits to which the volunteer was entitled because of the position,

see, e.g., Versarge v. Township of Clinton, 984 F.2d 1359, 1370 (3d Cir. 1993) (concluding that

benefits received by plaintiff as a volunteer firefighter -- e.g., training, workers’ compensation, and

access to the firehouse as a social area -- were de minimis and therefore plaintiff was not entitled to

the constitutional requirements of due process), Rev. Mayfield has not made any allegations that

there are significant benefits to which he would be entitled as a full chaplain (rather than as an

associate chaplain) sufficient to create a property interest.

Rev. Mayfield further argues that this due process rights were violated when he was

terminated from the Vounteer Police Chaplaincy Program. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that a

plaintiff could have a property interest in a volunteer position if the volunteer and the “employing”

entity had a mutually explicit understanding that the volunteer could be terminated only on certain

grounds. See, e.g., Hyland v. Wonder, 972 F.2d 1129, 1140 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that plaintiff

did not have a cognizable property interest in the perpetuation of his volunteer status at the juvenile

probation department; noting that plaintiff did not “allege a mutually explicit understanding on

termination conditions” and that, any such promise “would have been void under California law”

because noncivil service employees have no property interest in continued employment under

California law). The problem for Rev. Mayfield is that he has failed to demonstrate that there was

such an understanding with respect to his position as a volunteer chaplain. 

Rev. Mayfield relies on Section 7 of the Oakland Police Department’s General Order B-16

(attached to the second amended complaint as Exhibit A) which addresses reasons for dismissal. 

See SAC, Ex. A at 7. Section 7 provides as follows:

A. Violations of Chaplain conduct include, but are not limited to:

1. Violation of the Manual of Rules.

2. Repeated failure to respond when called.

3. Excessive tardiness.

4. Breech [sic] of confidentiality.

5. Failure to perform duties.

B. If one or more of the above actions are performed, the

Chaplain will be subject to:

Case 3:07-cv-00583-EMC Document 47 Filed 11/02/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

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 1

 Although the SAC leaves out the year, presumably, Plaintiffs mean 2006.

4

1. Counseling with the CC [i.e., Chaplain Coordinator].

2. Review by the OPACT Executive Board.

3. Dismissal from the program by the Chief of Police.

Id. While Section 7 provides some reasons why a volunteer may be dismissed, it does not foreclose

a volunteer from being dismissed for other reasons. The section specifically states that violations of

chaplain conduct “include, but are not limited to . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). Furthermore, Section

7(B) states if the chaplain engages in certain actions, he will be subject to dismissal; Section 7(B)

does not state that dismissal is limited to those situations. Accordingly, there was no mutually

explicit understanding between Rev. Mayfield and Defendants that he could be dismissed only for

cause. Cf. Wedges/Ledges of Cal., Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 24 F.3d 56, 63 (9th Cir. 1994) (explaining

that, if a city code gave a city official open-ended discretionary factors to consider in determining

whether a license should be issued, then a party could not assert a property interest in a license;

however, if the city code contained a provision that constrained discretion by an articulable standard,

then that would give rise to a legitimate claim of entitlement). Without a mutually explicit

understanding setting forth an articulable standard constraining Defendants’ discretion, Rev.

Mayfield has no cognizable property interest in continuing his position.

Rev. Mayfield’s claim for violation of due process is therefore dismissed.

2. Rev. Emerson

Like Rev. Mayfield, Rev. Emerson contends that his due process rights were violated

because of the failure to provide him with full chaplaincy status. For the reasons stated above, Rev.

Emerson has failed to allege a cognizable property interest.

B. Retaliation

According to the SAC, on November 29, 2006,1 Rev. Owens wrote a letter to the Mayor’s

office, stating that he was a witness to the unfair treatment of Rev. Mayfield and others. See SAC ¶

10. Subsequently, on December 21, 2006, Rev. Owens was asked “on extremely short notice” to

attend an OPACT meeting. Id. At the meeting, Rev. Owens was asked “a number of questions

about the situation with Rev. Mayfield.” Id. In addition, Ms. Levine told him that he was to turn in

Case 3:07-cv-00583-EMC Document 47 Filed 11/02/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

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

5

his badge and identification card on the spot. See id. When Rev. Owens refused, he was asked to

sign a document stating that he would not discuss publicly what was said at the meeting. He was

told that, if he did not sign the document, he would be dismissed from the Volunteer Police

Chaplaincy Program. See id. Based on the above, Rev. Owens contends that his free speech and

petition rights were violated when Defendants “forced him to come to the [OPACT] meeting,

threatened him with firing, and forced him to sign a letter agreeing to remain silent, all in retaliation

for the letter he wrote to the Mayor’s office.” SAC ¶ 17. 

Defendants argue that the retaliation claim should be dismissed because Rev. Owens has

failed to show that his speech or petition involved a matter of public concern. See Rendish v. City of

Tacoma, 123 F.3d 1216, 1222 (9th Cir. 1997) (“[I]n order to be constitutionally protected under

either the Speech Clause or the Petition Clause, a public employee’s actions must involve a matter of

public concern.”). The Court agrees. The Court has already determined that the situation involving

Rev. Mayfield did not involve a matter of public concern. Rather, the situation simply concerned

what was essentially a complaint over internal office affairs. See Docket No. 34 (order granting first

motion to dismiss). The SAC does not change this conclusion. Rev. Owens’ speech and petition

related to the Rev. Mayfield situation is therefore no different. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the second amended complaint. The

dismissal shall be with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of

Defendants and close the file in this case.

This order disposes of Docket No. 38.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 2, 2007

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00583-EMC Document 47 Filed 11/02/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REV. CHARLES MAYFIELD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-0583 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

James Shum

455 Seventh Street

Oakland, CA 94607

Lena Edmund

455 Seventh Street

Oakland, CA 94607

Malvina Stephens

455 Seventh Street

Oakland, CA 94607

Rufus Robbins

455 Seventh Street

Oakland, CA 94607

Dated: November 2, 2007 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-00583-EMC Document 47 Filed 11/02/07 Page 6 of 6