Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01271/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01271-15/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicholas Hart
Plaintiff
Kenneth Hockett
Defendant
Darlene Hutchins
Defendant
Brian Machado
Defendant
Benjamin C. Oyarzo
Plaintiff
Toney Powers
Defendant
Tuolumne Fire District
Defendant
Tuolumne Fire Protection District
Defendant
Joseph Turner
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN C. OYARZO and NICHOLAS

HART,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

TUOLUMNE FIRE DISTRICT (A.K.A. 

“TUOLUMNE FIRE PROTECTION 

DISTRICT”), JOSEPH TURNER, in his

individual and official capacities, DARLENE 

HUTCHINS, in her individual and official 

capacities, KENNETH HOCKETT, in his 

individual and official capacities, BRIAN 

MACHADO, in his individual and official 

capacities, TONEY POWERS, in his individual 

and official capacities, and DOES 1 THROUGH 

20, Inclusive

 Defendants.

1:11-CV-01271 LJO SAB

SECOND REQUEST FOR 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING.

As the Court has become more familiar with the record in this case, it appears that Plaintiff 

Oyarzo’s speech/activities related to annexation can be divided into two periods. Initially, Oyarzo spoke 

out in favor of annexation with the approval of the TFD Board and arguably under its direction and 

control. (The Parties debate at length whether he did so in his capacity as a private citizen or as a public 

employee.) Later, after the annexation effort was put on hold, Oyarzo was informed by TFD Board 

Member Defendant Turner that Turner no longer supported annexation. If Oyarzo’s declaration is 

accepted and viewed in a light most favorable to him,1 Oyarzo then indicated to Turner that Oyarzo 

intended to pursue annexation for personal reasons, regardless of the Board’s opinion on the subject. 

Oyarzo Decl., Doc. 89-4, ¶¶ 11-12. This arguably amounts to a threat by Oyarzo to speak out in his 

capacity as a private citizen on the subject of annexation. 

 

1 The Court is fully aware of Defendants’ objection that this portion of Oyarzo’s declaration is a sham.

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 100 Filed 06/14/13 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

2

The extensive briefing in this case does not focus on the key issues that flow from these facts. 

First, can Oyarzo’s threat to speak out on the topic of annexation for personal reasons form the basis of a 

First Amendment retaliation or deterrence claim? See Van Ooteghem v. Gray, 654 F.2d 304, 305 (5th 

Cir. 1981) (agreeing that plaintiff’s “intent to exercise his right to speak” was constitutionally 

protected); Weisbuch v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 119 F.3d 778, 782, 785 (9th Cir. 1997) (assuming without 

deciding that First Amendment retaliation claim could be based upon a threat to make protected speech). 

Second, even if such a threat can form the basis of a First Amendment claim, is any rule prohibiting 

retaliation or deterrence following such a threat clearly established for the purposes of qualified 

immunity?

In light of these authorities, Plaintiffs are directed to file a supplemental brief, no longer than five 

pages in length, addressing the two questions articulated above, taking care to distinguish between 

retaliation and deterrence. This supplemental brief shall be filed on or before June 19, 2013. Defendants 

shall have until June 21, 2013 to file a five page response.

SO ORDERED

Dated: June 14, 2013

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-01271-SAB Document 100 Filed 06/14/13 Page 2 of 2