Professional Documents
Culture Documents
26 Defendants.
27
28
-1- 3:17-cv-02255
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Case 3:17-cv-02255-MMC Document 13-1 Filed 06/28/17 Page 2 of 5
2 Plaintiffs) filed this action against Defendants Janet Napolitano, Nicholas B. Dirks, Stephen C.
3 Sutton, Joseph D. Greenwell, Margo Bennett, Alex Yao, and Leroy M. Harris (collectively,
4 Defendants) asserting four claims for relief under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Before
5 the Court is Defendants motion to dismiss all of Plaintiffs claims. Having considered the
6 parties submissions, the complaint, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS Defendants
8 I. LEGAL STANDARD
9 A Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be granted unless
10 plaintiff, who has the burden of proving jurisdiction, shows in his pleading, affirmatively and
11 distinctly, the existence of whatever is essential to federal jurisdiction. Tosco Corp. v. Communities
12 for a Better Envt, 236 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (quoting Smith v. McCullough,
13 270 U.S. 456, 459 (1926)), abrogated on other grounds by Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77
14 (2010)). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim must be granted where where the
15 complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.
16 Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).
17 Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, leave to amend should be freely
18 granted when justice so requires, bearing in mind the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate
19 decisions on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d
20 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Leave to
21 amend may be denied if allowing amendment would unduly prejudice the opposing party, cause
22 undue delay, be futile, or if the moving party has acted in bad faith. Leadsinger, Inc. v. BMG Music
24 II. DISCUSSION
25 A. Plaintiffs Claims For Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Are Dismissed as
Moot
26
The Court dismisses Plaintiffs claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as moot. To the
27
extent the supposed High-Profile Speaker Policy alleged in the Complaint ever existed, the
28
-2- 3:17-cv-02255
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Case 3:17-cv-02255-MMC Document 13-1 Filed 06/28/17 Page 3 of 5
1 University has committed to replacing it with a new policy that has not been challenged. The
2 Universitys public commitment to a new policy moots Plaintiffs claims. See Coal. of Airline
3 Pilots Assocs. v. F.A.A., 370 F.3d 1184, 1190-91 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (challenge to administrative
4 regulations was moot where the agencies had publicly committed to drafting new regulations);
5 Desert Outdoor Adver., Inc. v. Oakland, 506 F.3d 798, 808 (9th Cir. 2007) (challenge to ordinance
6 was moot where the city had temporarily amended the ordinance to delete the challenged
7 provision and planned to pass a permanent amendment after a judicial decision was rendered).1
27 1
The Court grants Defendants request for judicial notice in its entirety for the reasons stated
28 therein.
-3- 3:17-cv-02255
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Case 3:17-cv-02255-MMC Document 13-1 Filed 06/28/17 Page 4 of 5
1 reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others as required to support a
2 claim for punitive damages under Section 1983. Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983).
5 The Court dismisses Plaintiffs First Amendment free speech claim because the campus
6 facilities at issue are limited public forums where restrictions on speech need only be viewpoint
7 neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum. Rosenberger v. Rector &
8 Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995) (campus facilities opened to various student
9 groups were a limited public forum). The alleged restrictions were viewpoint neutral because they
10 were not motivated by disagreement with the speakers viewpoint. See Christian Legal Socy
11 Chapter of the Univ. of Cal., Hastings Coll. of the Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 695-696 (2010).
12 The alleged restrictions were also reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum because
13 they served the educational mission of the University. See id. at 685-86. Alternatively, the alleged
14 restrictions were constitutional time, place and manner regulations because they were content
15 neutral, narrowly tailored to serve the significant government interests in safety, education, and
16 distribution of university resources, and left open ample alternative channels of communication.
17 Perry Educ. Assn v. Perry Local Educators Assn, 460 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1983).
18 The Court dismisses Plaintiffs First Amendment retaliation claim (brought by the Berkeley
19 College Republicans only) because Plaintiffs have not alleged that the protected activity was a
20 substantial or motivating factor in the [Defendants] conduct. Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J,
21 467 F.3d 755, 770 (9th Cir. 2006). To the contrary, the facts alleged in the Complaint make clear
22 that the sole motivating factor for Defendants actions was the proper law enforcement motive of
23 maintaining security on campus. Nor have Plaintiffs established, as they must, that Defendants
24 conduct would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected
25 activity. Id. Rather, the alleged restrictions were de minimis deprivations that do not give rise to a
26 First Amendment claim. See, e.g., Blair v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 608 F.3d 540, 544 (9th Cir. 2010)
27 ([D]e minimis deprivations of benefits and privileges on account of ones speech do not give rise
28 to a First Amendment claim.); Matney v. Cty. of Kenosha, 86 F.3d 692, 699 (7th Cir. 1996)
-4- 3:17-cv-02255
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
Case 3:17-cv-02255-MMC Document 13-1 Filed 06/28/17 Page 5 of 5
1 (holding that any chill on speech from a permissible time, place, manner restriction is
2 constitutionally tolerable).
3 The Court dismisses Plaintiffs Due Process claim because Plaintiffs have not plausibly
4 alleged deprivation of any due process rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Bd. of
6 The Court dismisses Plaintiffs Equal Protection claim because Plaintiffs have not plausibly
7 alleged conduct by any Defendant that had both a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory
11 prohibits a federal court from issuing a declaration on the past lawfulness of the actions of a
13 III. CONCLUSION
14 For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS Defendants
15 Motion to Dismiss and DISMISSES Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice.
16
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
20
DATED: _______________________
21
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5- 3:17-cv-02255
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT