Feiger v. Smith et al
Filing
55
ORDER ADOPTING 38 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 21 Motion to Dismiss; This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/31/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ROBERT FEIGER,
12
13
14
15
16
No. 1:14-cv-01920-DAD-EPG
Plaintiff,
v.
MARLENE SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART,
GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS IN
PART, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK
TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
(Doc. Nos. 21, 38)
17
18
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
19
U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. This action was originally filed in Kings County Superior Court and
20
removed here on December 1, 2014. (Doc. No. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States
21
magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
22
On April 28, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that with respect to his
23
various state law causes of action plaintiff had failed to state a cognizable claim and that they
24
were immune from liability with respect to the alleged state law violations. (Doc. No. 21.) On
25
November 17, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations,
26
recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc.
27
No. 38.) The parties were advised any objections to the findings and recommendations were to
28
be filed within thirty days, and any replies to objections were to be filed within ten days
1
1
thereafter. Plaintiff filed his objections to the findings and recommendations on December 30,
2
2016. (Doc. No. 46.) Defendants did not object to the findings and recommendations or file a
3
reply to plaintiff’s objection, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the
5
undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire
6
file, the undersigned finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
7
proper analysis, save and except as discussed below.
8
9
The magistrate judge concluded that plaintiff could not state a claim under the Bane Act,
California Civil Code § 52.1, because none of plaintiff’s allegations involve violence or the threat
10
of violence. (Doc. No. 38 at 7–8.) The undersigned disagrees. An allegation of either violence
11
or the threat of violence is only necessary if the alleged violations of the Bane Act are based
12
entirely on speech. See Hearns v. Gonzales, No. 1:14-cv-01177-DAD-MJS, 2016 WL 110437, at
13
*1–2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2016) (“[T]here is no requirement under California law to allege an act
14
of violence has occurred or was threatened in order to state a claim under § 52.1, but rather only
15
that the exercise of rights protected either by federal law or California law was ‘interfered with’
16
by ‘threat, intimidation, or coercion.’”); see also Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal. 4th
17
820, 827-28 (2004) (permitting claims under § 52.1 based on allegedly unlawful searches and
18
seizures by several law enforcement officers, despite the fact that there were no allegations of
19
violence or threats of violence against the two plaintiffs); Moreno v. Town of Los Gatos, 267 Fed.
20
App. 665, 666 (9th Cir 2008) (“[S]ection 52.1 does not require violence or threat of violence.”)
21
Otherwise, a plaintiff must allege only two things under California law: 1) “intentional
22
interference or attempted interference with a state or federal constitutional or legal right,” and; 2)
23
that “the interference or attempted interference was by threats, intimidation or coercion.” Allen v.
24
City of Sacramento, 234 Cal App. 4th 41, 67 (2015) (citing Jones v. Kmart Corp., 17 Cal 4th 329,
25
334 (1998)).
26
Here, in screening the complaint, the magistrate judge concluded plaintiff had stated both
27
a free exercise and a retaliation claim under the First Amendment. (Doc. No. 18.) Specifically,
28
the magistrate judge found plaintiff had alleged the defendants had threatened to purposefully
2
1
continue withholding kosher food and prohibiting his participation in religious services if plaintiff
2
did not cease exercising his First Amendment rights, and then subsequently did prevent plaintiff
3
from exercising his religious rights. (Doc. No. 18 at 6 ) (emphasis added). As alleged by plaintiff
4
in his complaint, these actions constitute threats and coercion, as alleged, and are sufficient to
5
state a Bane Act claim.
6
Given this, the undersigned declines to adopt the findings and recommendations only on
7
this point. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Bane Act claim will be denied.
8
The undersigned finds none of plaintiff’s objections to the remaining aspects of the magistrate
9
judge’s findings and recommendations to be persuasive. Therefore, in all other respects the
10
findings and recommendations are adopted.
11
Accordingly:
12
1. The court adopts the findings and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge on
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
November 17, 2016 (Doc. No. 38) save and except as indicated above;
2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed April 28, 2016 (Doc. No. 21), is granted in part
and denied in part;
3. To the extent plaintiff has asserted a cause of action under California Civil Code § 51,
defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to that cause of action;
4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted as to plaintiff’s cause of action brought under
California Civil Code § 52;
5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied as to plaintiff’s cause of action under
California’s Bane Act, California Civil Code § 52.1;
6. Defendants motion to dismiss on the ground that they are entitled to immunity under
California Government Code § 845.2 is denied without prejudice; and
7. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
January 31, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?