Mann et al v. City of Sacramento et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/19/2017 DENYING 12 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

ROBERT MANN SR., VERN MURPHYMANN, DEBORAH MANN, ZACHARY
MANN, and WILLIAM MANN,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 2:17-01201 WBS DB

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO,
SACRAMENTO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
SAMUEL D. SOMERS JR., JOHN C.
TENNIS, and RANDY R. LOZOYA,
Defendants.

20
----oo0oo----

21
22

Joseph Mann (“decedent”) was shot and killed by

23

Sacramento Police officers John C. Tennis and Rand R. Lozoya on

24

July 11, 2016.

25

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to recover damages for deprivation of

26

their First Amendment right of association with decedent.

27

Presently before the court is defendants Tennis and Lozoya’s

28

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of

Decedent’s siblings have brought this action

1

1

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2

Plaintiffs concede that § 1983 claims for loss of

3

companionship under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause

4

are limited to parents and children.

5

Jose, 967 F.2d 280, 283-84 (9th Cir. 1991).

6

the court on this motion is whether § 1983 actions for loss of

7

association under the First Amendment are subject to the same

8

limitation.

9

are not.

10

See Ward v. City of San
The question before

For the following reasons, the court concludes they

The only case to this court’s knowledge dealing

11

directly with this question is Judge Pregerson’s decision in

12

Graham v. County of Los Angeles, No.10-05059, 2011 WL 3754749, at

13

*2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2017) (holding that the fiancé of decedent

14

had standing to bring a § 1983 claim under the Free Association

15

Clause of the First Amendment).

16

This conclusion finds support in the language of both

17

Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit caselaw.

18

Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte, 481

19

U.S. 537, 545 (1987), the Supreme Court said, “[T]he First

20

Amendment protects those relationships, including family

21

relationships, that presuppose ‘deep attachments and commitments

22

to the necessarily few other individuals with whom one shares not

23

only a special community of thoughts, experiences, and beliefs

24

but also distinctively personal aspects of one's life.’”

25

(quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622

26

(1984).

27
28

In Board of

Id.

In IDK, Inc. v. Clark County, 836 F.2d 1185, 1194 (9th
Cir. 1988), the Ninth Circuit noted that, “[d]ating and other
2

1

social associations to the extent that they are expressive are

2

not excluded from the safeguards of the first amendment.”

3

Nothing in the language of either the Supreme Court or the Ninth

4

Circuit suggests that these first amendment protections are

5

limited to the relationship between parents and children.

6

This result does raise some perplexing questions.

7

for example, would the Supreme Court go to all the trouble in

8

Ward to limit the right of recovery under the Fourteenth

9

Why,

Amendment to parents or children if others can simply recover

10

under the First Amendment?

11

has the requisite degree of intimacy with the decedent to assert

12

a First Amendment claim?

These questions, however, are not

13

before this court today.

It is sometimes said that tough cases

14

make bad law.

15

law makes tough cases.

16

How are the courts to determine who

Here it might more appropriately be said that bad

For the foregoing reasons, the court cannot conclude at

17

this stage of the proceedings as a matter of law that plaintiffs

18

do not have standing to bring their § 1983 claim for deprivation

19

of their First Amendment right of association with decedent.

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion to

21

dismiss plaintiffs’ Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal

22

Rules of Civil Procedure be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

23

Dated:

September 19, 2017

24
25
26
27
28
3