Opinion ID: 3054016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Liability of Defendants

Text: As noted, each Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim cannot proceed, even if there was a constitutional violation. We address below those arguments for the three types of defendants in this case. [6] Officer Cardella argues that he is protected by qualified immunity. Qualified immunity applies if the constitutional right was “clearly established” so that “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202. Because the district court held that no constitutional violation occurred, it did not reach the question whether Officer Cardella was protected by qualified immunity. We have held that a First Amendment violation did occur. Therefore, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Defendant Cardella and remand for the district court to determine, in the first instance, whether he is protected by qualified immunity. [7] The private parties argue that they were not acting “under color of state law,” a requirement for liability under § 1983. Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1148 (9th Cir. 1989). “Under § 1983, a claim may lie against a private party who ‘is a willful participant in joint action with the State or its agents. Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the challenged action, are acting “under color” of law for purposes of § 1983 actions.’ ” DeGrassi, 207 F.3d at 647 (quoting Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 (1980)). “However, a bare allegation of such joint action will not overcome a motion to dismiss; the plaintiff must allege facts tending to 15864 DIETRICH v. JOHN ASCUAGA’S NUGGET show that [Defendants] acted under color of state law or authority.” DeGrassi, 207 F.3d at 647 (internal quotation marks omitted). [8] Here, Plaintiff’s bare allegation that “[t]he defendants acted in concert in . . . removing [P]laintiff and other [p]etition gatherers from the public sidewalk” is insufficient to establish joint action. There is no evidence that Defendants Nugget, Harvey, and Malchow did anything more than summon police. “[M]erely complaining to the police does not convert a private party into a state actor.” Collins, 878 F.2d at 1155. We therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Defendants Nugget, Harvey, and Malchow. [9] The municipal entities argue that they are not liable because there is no municipal policy or custom of excluding persons from permitted events on public land. Under Monell, § 1983 claims may be brought against municipalities only if a plaintiff demonstrates injury resulting from “execution of a government’s policy or custom, whether made by its lawmakers or by those whose edicts or acts may fairly be said to represent official policy.” 436 U.S. at 694. There is no respondeat superior liability. Id. at 691. We have stated four conditions that must be satisfied in order to establish municipal liability for failing to act to preserve constitutional rights: (1) that the plaintiff possessed a constitutional right of which he was deprived; (2) that the municipality had a policy; (3) that this policy amounts to deliberate indifference to the plaintiff’s constitutional right; and (4) that the policy is the moving force behind the constitutional violation. Van Ort v. Estate of Stanewich, 92 F.3d 831, 835 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). [10] Plaintiff does not point to any portion of the Sparks Municipal Code that prohibits or restricts a person’s exercise DIETRICH v. JOHN ASCUAGA’S NUGGET 15865 of his or her First Amendment rights as a matter of city policy. The actions of Officer Cardella on one day, without more, cannot establish a custom, policy, practice, or procedure. Defendants submitted an affidavit from the Chief of Police that the Sparks Police Department had no such custom, policy, practice, or procedure to exclude private citizens exercising their First Amendment rights from specially permitted areas, and Plaintiff failed to rebut that evidence. We therefore affirm the summary judgment in favor of Defendants City of Sparks and Sparks Police Department. B. First Amendment Retaliation Claim for the Saturday Traffic Citation [11] Plaintiff’s second claim for a violation of her First Amendment rights concerns the traffic citation that she received on Saturday from Officer Potter. She argues that she was cited in retaliation for exercising her First Amendment rights. Specifically, she contends that the publication of the newspaper article on Friday evening led to her traffic citation on Saturday. To demonstrate retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, [Plaintiff] must ultimately prove first that [Defendants] took action that would chill or silence a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities. . . . The second requirement is [that] . . . [Plaintiff] must ultimately prove that [Defendants’] desire to cause the chilling effect was a but-for cause of [Defendants’] action. Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1231-32 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). [12] Plaintiff cannot establish causation. Her only theory is that Defendants read the newspaper article and cited her because of it (and not because she drove past a police barricade with a “road closed” sign on it). But there is no evidence 15866 DIETRICH v. JOHN ASCUAGA’S NUGGET that Defendants read the newspaper article. Plaintiff did not testify at her deposition that any of the Defendants mentioned it during the incident. She did not depose Defendants to ask them whether they had read the article, let alone whether they cited her because of it. [13] Furthermore, Defendant Potter plainly had probable cause to cite Plaintiff: She does not dispute that she drove past the police barricade. Although she challenged the citation in municipal court, that court convicted her and the appellate court upheld the conviction. In Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 265-66 (2006), the Supreme Court held that, when a plaintiff claims prosecution in retaliation for an exercise of a First Amendment right, the plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant lacked probable cause. In Skoog, we limited Hartman to cases involving “retaliatory prosecution claims”; failure to plead and prove probable cause is therefore not dispositive with regard to “ ‘ordinary’ retaliation claim[s].” Skoog, 469 F.3d at 1234.5 This is not a retaliatory prosecution claim. Under Skoog, then, the fact that Defendants had probable cause is not dispositive. But it undoubtedly “ha[s] high probative force.” Hartman, 547 U.S. at 265. In Skoog, we held that the retaliatory First Amendment claim survived summary judgment when there was barely enough evidence to conclude that there was probable cause, while there was strong evidence of a retaliatory motive. See 469 F.3d at 1231 (holding that, “[a]lthough it is a close question, we conclude that” sufficient evidence existed to support a finding of probable cause); id. at 1225-26 (recounting the strong circumstantial evidence of retaliatory motive). Espe- 5 We have acknowledged that a majority of circuits that had considered the issue had declined to limit Hartman in that manner. Skoog, 469 F.3d at 1232 & n.31; see also Beck v. City of Upland, 527 F.3d 853, 864 (9th Cir. 2008) (expanding the reach of Hartman to certain Fourth Amendment cases because we saw “no reason to limit Hartman’s probable cause requirement solely to First Amendment retaliatory arrest and prosecution cases”). DIETRICH v. JOHN ASCUAGA’S NUGGET 15867 cially given the importance of “protecting government officials from the disruption caused by unfounded claims,” id. at 1232, this case—which has very strong evidence of probable cause and very weak evidence of a retaliatory motive—falls outside the reach of Skoog. Importantly, if it did not, then nearly every retaliatory First Amendment claim would survive summary judgment. There is almost always a weak inference of retaliation whenever a plaintiff and a defendant have had previous negative interactions; holding that this case survives summary judgment would provide almost no “protect- [ion for] government officials from the disruption caused by unfounded claims.” Id. [14] We conclude that no reasonable juror could find from the undisputed facts that Defendants acted in retaliation for Plaintiff’s First Amendment activities when Officer Potter gave her a traffic citation. We therefore affirm the district court’s summary judgment to all Defendants on this claim.