Padron v. City of Parlier et al

Filing 31

ORDER Requiring Parties to Submit Supplemental Briefing by March 20, 2018, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/14/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

ALFONSO PADRON,

10

Plaintiff,

11

Case No. 1:16-cv-00549-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO
SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY
MARCH 20, 2018

v.

12

CITY OF PARLIER, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Plaintiff Alfonso Padron, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights

16 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 19, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This action is currently
17 proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed May 27, 2016, against Defendant Israel
18 Lara for violating his right to privacy under the Constitution of the United States and the State of
19 California and negligence under state law. (ECF Nos. 6, 9, 11.) This action is currently set for a
20 jury trial on May 8, 2018 before the undersigned. (ECF No. 25.)
21

On March 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the undersigned as the trial judge

22 in this action. (ECF No. 27.) On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff’s motion was denied. (ECF No. 28.)
23 The March 6, 2018 order stated “In reviewing the screening order issued in this matter, the Court
24 assumed without deciding that a right to privacy existed in Plaintiff’s address and phone number.
25 (Findings and Recommendations Recommending Dismissing Certain Claims and Defendants 426 5, 7, ECF No. 6.) The Court notes that this issue has not been addressed by the parties and will
27 need to be decided before trial.” (ECF No. 28 at 5.) In their pretrial statements the parties were
28 ordered to address whether a federal and state right to privacy exists in Plaintiff’s address and

1

1 phone number. (Id.) Defendant did not address the issue in the pretrial statement and Plaintiff
2 only addressed the issue as to California law.

The parties will be required to provide

3 supplemental briefing on this issue prior to the pretrial conference. The Court provides the
4 following as a starting point for the parties briefing.
5

“The federal Constitution contains no provision expressly setting forth or guaranteeing a

6 constitutional right of ‘privacy[,]’ ” Am. Acad. of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal.4th 307, 326
7 (1997), but courts have held that there are some privacy rights that are within those fundamental
8 rights that are protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Planned
9 Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 847 (1992). “In two cases decided more
10 than 30 years ago, [the Supreme Court] referred broadly to a constitutional privacy ‘interest in
11 avoiding disclosure of personal matters.’ ” Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin. v. Nelson, 562
12 U.S. 134, 138 (2011) (quoting Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599–600 (1977); Nixon v.
13 Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S. 425, 457 (1977)). The Court recognized that there
14 are two kinds of privacy interests: 1) an individual’s interest in avoiding disclosure of personal
15 matters; and 2) an individual’s interest in making certain kinds of important decisions. Whalen,
16 429 U.S. at 599. In Nelson, the Supreme Court assumed without deciding that there was a
17 constitutional right to informational privacy. Nelson, 562 U.S. at 138.
18

“In [Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)], the Supreme Court pointed out that the personal

19 rights found in this guarantee of personal privacy must be limited to those which are
20 “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” as described in Palko v.
21 Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937).” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 713 (1976). “The
22 activities detailed as being within this definition were ones very different from that for which
23 respondent claims constitutional protection—matters relating to marriage, procreation,
24 contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education. In these areas it has been
25 held that there are limitations on the States’ power to substantively regulate conduct.” Paul, 424
26 U.S. at 713.
27

The Ninth Circuit has recognized a constitutional protected privacy interest in avoiding

28 disclosure of personal matters which encompasses medical records, although the Supreme Court

2

1 has never so held. Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir.
2 1998); Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 537 (9th Cir. 2010). “Some courts have held that
3 where the government releases information, it must be of a highly personal nature before
4 constitutional privacy rights will attach.” Arakawa v. Sakata, 133 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1228 (D.
5 Haw. 2001).
The Supreme Court made it clear that certain types of disclosures or publications do not

6

7 rise to the level of constitutional protection and must be addressed exclusively under state law.
8 Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. at 713. The right of privacy cases limit the privacy rights of individuals
9 under the substantive due process clause to those rights that are “fundamental” or “implicit in the
10 concept of ordered liberty.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that employees can have a
11 privacy interest in their names and addresses, particularly when the information is coupled with
12 personal financial information which could be used by mass marketers to commit an invasion of
13 the individual right to be let alone. Painting Indus. of Hawaii Mkt. Recovery Fund v. U.S. Dep’t
14 of Air Force, 26 F.3d 1479, 1483 (9th Cir. 1994).

However, the Ninth Circuit has also

15 recognized that the general vicinity of an offender’s address is not considered private
16 information. Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079, 1094 (9th Cir. 1997).
Given this background, the parties shall file supplemental briefing regarding whether a

17

18 right to privacy exists in an individual’s address and phone number under the federal
19 constitution.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties are to file

20

21 supplemental briefing on or before March 20, 2018 regarding whether a right to privacy exists in
22 an individual’s address and phone number under the federal constitution.
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25 Dated:

March 14, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

3