K.Y. v. Schmitt

Filing 38

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING HEARING; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. The First Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice for lack of standing. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 21, 2018. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

K.Y., through his guardians David and
Leilanie Yu,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS; VACATING
HEARING; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

v.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 18-cv-00940-MMC

RICK SCHMITT, in his official capacity
as Superintendent of the San Ramon
Valley Unified School District,

12

Re: Dkt. No. 29

Defendant.

13
14

Before the Court is defendant Rick Schmitt's Motion, filed May 11, 2018, "to

15

Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for Declaration and Injunctive Relief."

16

Plaintiff K.Y. has filed opposition, to which defendant has replied. Having read and

17

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules

18

as follows.1
BACKGROUND

19
20

In his initial complaint, filed February 13, 2018, K.Y. alleged he is a sophomore

21

attending San Ramon Valley High School and that, as of the date on which he filed his

22

initial complaint, he was "running unopposed" for the "position of Junior Class President"

23

(see Compl. ¶ 1), which election was to be conducted during the week beginning

24

February 20, 2018 (see Compl. ¶ 19.e.). In said pleading, K.Y. further alleged the

25

school's "2018-2019 Campaign Rules and Guidelines" ("2018-2019 Rules"), which rules

26

were applicable to the February 2018 election, contained "unconstitutional provisions"

27
1

28

By order filed June 19, 2018, the Court took the matter under submission.

1

(see Compl. ¶ 19), and, based thereon, sought an order declaring the challenged rules

2

unconstitutional and enjoining the school district from enforcing them (see Compl. ¶ 7).

3

Concurrent with his initial complaint, plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary

4

restraining order, by which he sought to preclude the school from enforcing the

5

challenged 2018-2019 Rules in connection with the February 2018 election. On March 8,

6

2018, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the initial complaint.

7

By order filed February 14, 2018, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a

8

temporary restraining order, finding, inter alia, plaintiff had not identified any action he

9

wished to take that might violate the challenged rules. Thereafter, by order filed April 10,
2018, the Court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding plaintiff had failed to

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

allege facts to establish his standing to challenge the rules, and afforded plaintiff leave to

12

amend to allege such facts.

13

On April 27, 2018, plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), in which he

14

alleges, as he did in his initial complaint, that the 2018-2019 Rules are unconstitutional;

15

he again seeks injunctive relief prohibiting their enforcement, as well as a declaration that

16

the 2018-2019 Rules violate, inter alia, the First Amendment. In particular, plaintiff

17

challenges the 2018-2019 Rules precluding candidates from using "inappropriate"

18

material on campaign signs, in slogans, and on posters, and limiting candidates to the

19

use of "appropriate language" in any recorded "Speech/Ad" played during school hours.

20

(See FAC ¶ 17.)2 Plaintiff also challenges the definition of "inappropriate" used in the

21

2018-2019 Rules, to wit: "vulgar, obscene, racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive to

22

others." (See FAC ¶ 17.b.)

23
24

In the FAC, plaintiff additionally alleges he prevailed in the election conducted in
February 2018, and, consequently, is the "junior class president-elect," which position he

25
26
27
28

2

The FAC includes partial quotes of some of the 2018-2019 Rules. The Court
takes judicial notice of the entirety of the 2018-2019 Rules, which are contained in an
exhibit offered in support of plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order. (See Yu
Decl. Ex. D.)
2

1

will hold for the "2018-2019 school year." (See FAC ¶¶ 1, 15.) Plaintiff alleges he

2

"intends to run for Associate Student Body . . . president for the 2019-2000 school year"

3

at an election that will be conducted in February 2019. (See FAC ¶ 6.)
DISCUSSION

4
5

By the instant motion, defendant argues plaintiff has again failed to allege facts to

6

establish his standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the 2018-

7

2019 Rules.

8

To obtain injunctive relief or declaratory relief, a plaintiff must establish "he is
under threat of suffering 'injury in fact' that is concrete and particularized"; "the threat

10

must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." See Summers v. Earth

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (setting forth elements necessary to establish

12

standing to seek injunctive relief); Coral Construction Co. v. King County, 941 F.2d 910,

13

929 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding plaintiff seeking declaratory relief must establish "an injury to

14

himself that is distinct and palpable" and "not conjectural or hypothetical"). At the

15

pleading stage, a plaintiff, to avoid dismissal, must allege sufficient facts to support "the

16

elements of standing." See Center for Biological Diversity v. Mattis, 868 F.3d 803, 816

17

(9th Cir. 2017).

18

A plaintiff may, however, seek to challenge on First Amendment grounds a rule

19

where the plaintiff, as here, has not "suffer[ed] a direct injury from the challenged

20

restriction." See Lopez v. Candaele, 630 F.3d 775, 785 (9th Cir. 2010). In such a

21

challenge, the plaintiff can establish standing by "demonstrating a realistic danger of

22

sustaining a direct injury," which "danger," at the pleading stage, is established by factual

23

allegations showing "an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with

24

a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a [rule], and a credible threat of prosecution

25

thereunder." See id. (internal quotation, citation and alteration omitted). As the Ninth

26

Circuit has explained, a court, in determining whether such a "pre-enforcement plaintiff"

27

can establish standing, should consider: (1) whether the plaintiff has "failed to show a

28

reasonable likelihood that the government will enforce the challenged law against [him]";
3

1

(2) whether the plaintiff has "failed to establish, with some degree of concrete detail, that

2

[he] intend[s] to violate the challenged law"; and (3) "whether the challenged law is

3

inapplicable to the plaintiff[ ], either by its terms or as interpreted by the government."

4

See id. at 786.
Here, as set forth above, plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of a specific word

6

and phrase contained in the 2018-2019 Rules, in particular, the word "inappropriate" and

7

the phrase "offensive to others," which, in turn, is included in defendant's definition of

8

"inappropriate." The 2018-2019 Rules, however, are, by their own terms, only applicable

9

to the election that was conducted in February 2018. (See Yu Decl. Ex. D ("2018-2019

10

Leadership/Election Guidelines") (stating: "Below are the Rules and Guidelines we are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

using this year for the election.").) Although plaintiff alleges "[t]here is no indication the

12

school will refrain from enforcing the . . . inappropriate language [provisions] in the future"

13

(see FAC ¶ 23), plaintiff acknowledges that, after his brother filed a lawsuit challenging a

14

provision in the rules applicable to the school elections held in 2017, the school, in

15

response thereto, "changed the election rules for [the 2018 election]." (See Compl.

16

¶¶ 15-17.)

17

Consequently, as the 2018-2019 Rules, by their own terms, are applicable only to

18

the election conducted in February 2018, and as the facts alleged in the FAC do not

19

support a finding that the school will use those Rules for the next year's elections, but,

20

rather, that the school may well change the rules in response to the instant lawsuit or for

21

other reasons, the first and third of the above-quoted factors weigh against a finding of

22

standing. See Lopez, 630 F.3d at 786.

23

The remaining factor, the second factor, likewise weighs against a finding of

24

standing. Even assuming the 2018-2019 Rules will be applied without material revision

25

to the 2019-2020 school year elections, plaintiff fails to identify with the requisite

26

"concrete detail," see id., any proposed campaign activity in which he intends to engage

27

that, arguably, would violate those rules. Indeed, plaintiff acknowledges that, "[b]ecause

28

his campaign will be affected by the issues and the culture of February 2019, it is
4

1

premature to predict exactly what [plaintiff's] campaign will center on or what language or

2

materials will be effective at that time." (See FAC ¶ 28.) Although plaintiff alleges he

3

intends to use "jarring images and/or provocative language" and "wants to be able to

4

speak" about issues "such as race, immigration policy, or religion" (see FAC ¶¶ 28-29),

5

such generalized intentions are insufficient to establish standing. See Lopez, 630 F.3d at

6

787 (holding "plaintiffs' allegations must be specific enough so that a court need not

7

speculate as to the kinds of political activity the plaintiffs desire to engage in or as to the

8

contents of their proposed public statements or the circumstances of their publication")

9

(internal quotation, citation and alteration omitted).

10

In sum, plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to support a finding that plaintiff, at the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

present time, has standing to challenge the election rules the school will put in place to

12

govern the election to be conducted in February 2019.

13

Accordingly, the FAC will be dismissed for lack of standing, without prejudice to

14

plaintiffs' filing a new action upon the school's issuance of the rules applicable to the

15

election of officers for the 2019-2000 school year.
CONCLUSION

16
17

For the reasons stated above, defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED,

18

and the First Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of

19

standing.

20

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: June 21, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
5