Court Opinion

ID: 9493345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:05:46.815966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:47.708212
License: Public Domain

O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
While I concur in the opinion of the court, I write separately to note that this was a close case that turned largely on the threshold of summary judgment, which requires just a single issue of material fact for reversal. Whether the facts averred by'Blair constitute a policy of harassment by the City of Pomona against whistle-blowers is far from clear. Indeed, many a reasonable factfinder could conclude that they do not.
The four acts identified by the majority as clearly having been performed under color of state law are not overwhelming evidence of a deprivation of Blair’s civil rights. The first incident, involving the placement of a police car in the path of Blair’s mother, could easily be viewed as trivial. Evidently, she could move in any other direction but forward and was waylaid for no more than a matter of seconds. Second, the interruption of one of Blair’s radio transmissions might have been largely undistinguishable from ordinary radio static and occurred only once. Third, Blair complained of not receiving backup on a single occasion; it is impossible to say, however, whether the 23 minutes he waited is longer or shorter than the average wait for backup. Fourth, Blair was indeed transferred, but so too was his entire team.
These incidents could easily be viewed as innocuous, and I concur in the majority’s opinion only to the extent that it holds that one or more issues of material fact exist.