Lancaster v. City of Pleasanton et al

Filing 102

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND VACATING HEARING by Judge William Alsup [granting 92 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BRIAN LANCASTER,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. C 12-05267 WHA

v.
CITY OF PLEASANTON; OFFICER TIM
MARTENS; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA;
DEPUTY SHERIFF RYAN SILCOCKS;
LESLEY REGINA; LISA SECORD;
LOUIS SECORD; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
ON THE PLEADINGS AND
VACATING HEARING

Defendants.
/

18
19

INTRODUCTION

20

In this civil-rights action arising from an alleged scheme to discredit plaintiff in

21

child-custody proceedings, one of the named defendants moves for judgment on the pleadings.

22

For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED.

23
24

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Brian Lancaster filed suit in October 2012, alleging a cabal that made him victim

25

to, among other things, falsification of police records, false arrest, defamation, and improper

26

release of confidential records. Plaintiff’s ex-wife and her current husband, defendants Lisa

27

and Trey Secord, allegedly enlisted the help of numerous cronies to harass plaintiff, primarily

28

to gain an advantage in the ex-wife’s child-custody dispute with him. Plaintiff’s sprawling state

1

law claims are anchored by a single federal civil rights claim. The allegations have been set

2

forth in more detail in a previous order (see Dkt. No. 54). Relevant to this motion, the complaint

3

alleges federal claims against two officers.

4

The present motion was brought by Deputy Silcocks. Plaintiff alleges that Deputy

5

Silcocks unlawfully disclosed “confidential information from the California Department of

6

Motor Vehicles, Clets, NCIC and CORPUS pertaining to plaintiff” to co-defendant Lesley

7

Regina. Regina then allegedly forwarded this information to ex-wife Lisa Secord for use in

8

her child-custody dispute with plaintiff (First Amd. Compl. ¶ 21–24).

9

The parties to this action have created a procedural nightmare. A previous order,
dated March 25, stayed all state-law claims, dismissed the Section 1983 claims against the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

City of Pleasanton and the County of Alameda, and allowed discovery to proceed only as to the

12

Section 1983 claim against defendant Officer Martens (with the idea that if and when the federal

13

claim vanished, supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims would be possibly declined).

14

Notably, the March 25 order dismissed plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim on privacy grounds arising

15

from Deputy Silcocks’ alleged actions as against the County of Alameda, Deputy Silcocks’

16

direct employer. The other officer — Officer Martens — was later dismissed following a

17

settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu.

18

At the time of the March 25 order, default had been entered against Deputy Silcocks.

19

A later order, dated May 9, set aside the entry of default, finding he had been improperly

20

served (Dkt. No. 69). Because of this wrinkle, a Section 1983 claim is still on the books against

21

Deputy Silcocks even though the same claim was dismissed as a matter of law against the

22

County of Alameda in the March 25 order. To clean up this procedural mess, the undersigned

23

judge ordered Deputy Silcocks to bring a Rule 12(c) motion during a prior oral argument (Dkt.

24

No. 87 at 16–17).

25

ANALYSIS
LEGAL STANDARD.

26

1.

27

Our court of appeals has held:

28

Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, accepting
all factual allegations in the complaint as true, there is no issue
2

1

of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Analysis under Rule 12(c) is
substantially identical to analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) because,
under both rules, a court must determine whether the facts alleged
in the complaint, taken as true, entitle the plaintiff to a legal
remedy.

2
3
4

Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted).
5
2.

THE SECTION 1983 CLAIM AGAINST DEPUTY SILCOCKS.

6
The parties lock horns over the scope of constitutional rights to informational privacy
7
and familial relationships. According to plaintiff, Deputy Silcocks violated plaintiff’s right
8
to informational privacy when he disclosed to co-defendant Regina confidential information
9
about plaintiff from various governmental databases. Moreover, plaintiff regards this as an
10
constitutional violations form the basis for plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim against Deputy
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

unconstitutional interference with his familial relationship with his children. These perceived
11
12
Silcocks.
13
Deputy Silcocks denies that plaintiff’s allegations can support a Section 1983 claim.
14
In his view, the “right to informational privacy” is much more narrow in scope and does not
15
cover the information allegedly disclosed by Deputy Silcocks, while the decisions cited by
16
plaintiff relating to the constitutional right to familial relations are inapposite. This order agrees
17
with Deputy Silcocks.
18
The March 25 order rejected this exact claim against the County of Alameda as a matter
19
of law. Our court of appeals has limited informational privacy rights to information concerning
20
“marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
21
Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 538 (9th Cir. 2010). Thus, plaintiff’s theory of informational
22
privacy does not give rise to a Section 1983 claim. Plaintiff failed to show any reason why
23
this order should depart from the March 25 order. For this reason, Deputy Silcocks’ motion
24
for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.
25
Were the present action to be decided solely on the briefing, plaintiff’s claim would have
26
been dismissed without leave to amend, thereby finally putting this tortured history to rest as far
27
as federal proceedings are concerned.
28
3

1

This order takes notice of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. 2721.

2

The DPPA prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of “personal information” from DMV records

3

by an authorized recipient of that information. Our court of appeals has not decided whether

4

violations of the DPPA can be vindicated through Section 1983 but a sister circuit had “no

5

hesitancy in finding that the plain language of the DPPA clearly . . . make[s] it enforceable

6

under Section 1983.” Collier v. Dickinson, 477 F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2007).

7

Plaintiff alleges that Deputy Silcocks accessed “confidential information regarding

8

plaintiff, including information from the California Department of Motor Vehicles” (First Amd.

9

Compl. ¶ 19). While it remains unclear what exactly was disclosed, this allegation could

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

potentially give rise to a Section 1983 claim.
Plaintiff had no prior chance to amend his complaint against Deputy Silcocks. This is

12

because the entry of default against Deputy Silcocks was set aside after the deadline for

13

amendments had passed and the March 25 order did not allow for further amendments.

14

Thus, plaintiff will be allowed to file a motion for leave to amend. The motion may be filed

15

on or before NOON ON AUGUST 2, 2013. The following may be briefed: whether Collier should

16

be followed; and whether “personal information” within the meaning of the DPPA was allegedly

17

disclosed.

18

CONCLUSION

19

For the reasons stated above, Deputy Silcocks’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is

20

GRANTED. The motion hearing scheduled for July 25 is VACATED. Plaintiff may file a motion

21

for leave to file an amended complaint, noticed on a normal 35-day track, in order to allege a

22

Section 1983 claim for violation of the DPPA. A proposed amended complaint must be

23

appended to the motion and plaintiff must plead his best case.

24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26

Dated: July 12, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
4