Charles Dirks v. Joe Grasso ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                            FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                             SEP 02 2011
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    CHARLES DIRKS,                                   No. 09-56187
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:07-cv-02664-GAF-
    FMO
    v.
    JOE GRASSO; et al.,                              MEMORANDUM*
    Defendants - Appellants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted December 9, 2010
    Pasadena, California
    Before: NOONAN, BERZON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department officers appeal the district court’s
    order denying in part their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law in a suit
    brought under 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     by Professor Charles Dirks (“Dirks”). The
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    officers—Sargent Joe Grasso (“Grasso”) and Deputies Ricky Baker and Darren
    Inana (“Baker” and “Inana”)—brought the renewed motion after a jury deadlocked
    on Dirks’s unlawful arrest and First Amendment retaliation claims.
    We review the district court’s denial of qualified immunity de novo, taking
    all disputed facts in the light most favorable to Dirks, the non-moving party.
    Wilkinson v. Torres, 
    610 F.3d 546
    , 550 (9th Cir. 2010). A Sheriff’s Department
    employee recorded the events leading up to Dirks’s arrest on video, and Dirks
    made an audio recording. Viewing and hearing the recordings, we agree with the
    district court that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity.
    1. The district court correctly concluded that the officers are not entitled to
    qualified immunity on Dirks’s unlawful arrest claim. At the time of Dirks’s arrest,
    it was clearly established that an officer must have probable cause to execute a
    warrantless arrest. See Michigan v. Summers, 
    452 U.S. 692
    , 699-700 (1981).
    Here, the officers could not have reasonably believed they had probable cause to
    arrest Dirks.
    The officers first claim they had probable cause to arrest Dirks for disturbing
    the peace, a violation of California Penal Code §§ 415 and 415.5. At no point prior
    to Dirks’s arrest could a reasonable officer have found, as required by California
    law, that there was a “clear and present danger of imminent violence,” nor that the
    2
    intent of Dirks’s communication was merely to disturb. See In re Brown, 
    510 P.2d 1017
    , 1023 (Cal. 1973). A reasonable officer would have known that Dirks
    intended to express his opposition to Grasso’s attempt to meet with, interrogate, or
    fire a student Sheriff’s Cadet, Yesenia Franco (“Franco”). Dirks in no way
    threatened the officers with violence, nor were his words likely to induce an
    immediate, violent response by the officers. See United States v. Poocha, 
    259 F.3d 1077
    , 1080-81 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, a reasonable officer could not have
    concluded that there was probable cause to arrest Dirks for a violation of California
    Penal Code §§ 415 or 415.5.
    The officers next claim they had probable cause to arrest Dirks for
    obstruction of justice, a violation of California Penal Code § 148. However, verbal
    criticism of police officers and refusal to respond promptly to police orders do not
    support probable cause for a violation of § 148. See Mackinney v. Nielsen, 
    69 F.3d 1002
    , 1005-07 (9th Cir. 1995); People v. Bower, 
    597 P.2d 115
    , 122 (Cal. 1979). A
    reasonable officer could not have concluded that there was probable cause to arrest
    Dirks for violating § 148 based on Dirks’s failure to immediately leave the
    sheriff’s substation, his objection to Grasso’s attempt to meet with Franco, or his
    standing in the entrance to the substation while engaged in a discussion with
    Grasso.
    3
    Baker and Inana argue that even if probable cause did not exist, they are
    entitled to qualified immunity because they were acting pursuant to Grasso’s
    orders. Baker and Inana cite no binding authority holding that following a
    superior’s orders entitles officers to qualified immunity, and none exists. They
    personally observed all the events leading up to the arrest of Dirks. Based on the
    totality of facts and circumstances within their knowledge, Baker and Inana could
    not reasonably have believed that probable cause to arrest Dirks existed. See
    Ramirez v. City of Buena Park, 
    560 F.3d 1012
    , 1020-21 (9th Cir. 2009).
    2. Grasso is not entitled to qualified immunity on Dirks’s First Amendment
    retaliation claim. Grasso argues that Dirks failed to prove that Grasso’s desire to
    chill protected speech was a substantial or motivating cause of Dirks’s arrest. See
    Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 
    192 F.3d 1283
    , 1300 (9th Cir. 1999).
    At the time of Dirks’s arrest, the First Amendment right to “verbally. . . oppose or
    challenge police action without thereby risking arrest” was clearly established.
    City of Houston v. Hill, 
    482 U.S. 451
    , 462-63 (1987). Even assuming, without
    deciding, that the front lobby of a sheriff’s substation is a nonpublic forum,
    Grasso’s argument fails. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Dirks,
    Grasso arrested Dirks because he voiced his opposition to the planned interrogation
    or termination of Franco for her off-duty activities at a contentious student
    4
    government meeting. The arrest was not a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral
    restriction on Dirks’s speech. See Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 
    303 F.3d 959
    , 965 (9th Cir. 2002). A reasonable officer could not have concluded that
    it was constitutional to arrest Dirks for expressing his opposition to Grasso’s
    conduct.
    AFFIRMED.
    5
    Ú×ÔÛÜ
    Ü·®µ- ªò Ù®¿--±ô »¬ ¿´òô Ò±ò ðçóëêïèé                                         ÍÛÐ ðî îðïï
    Ý¿´´¿¸¿²ô Ý·®½«·¬ Ö«¼¹»                                                  ÓÑÔÔÇ Ýò ÜÉÇÛÎô ÝÔÛÎÕ
    ËòÍ ò ÝÑ Ë ÎÌ ÑÚ ßÐ ÐÛ ß ÔÍ
    × ¼·--»²¬ò × ¾»´·»ª» ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ·² ¬¸·- ½¿-» ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ¯«¿´·º·»¼ ·³³«²·¬§
    º®±³ ¬¸» ½´¿·³- ³¿¼» ¾§ Ю±º»--±® Ü·®µ- ¿²¼ ©±«´¼ ®»ª»®-»ò
    Ú·®-¬´§ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·³³«²·¬§ ±² Ü·®µ-Ž «²´¿©º«´ ¿®®»-¬ ½´¿·³
    •«²´»-- Ŭ¸»·®Ã ½±²¼«½¬ ª·±´¿¬»¼ ¿ ½´»¿®´§ »-¬¿¾´·-¸»¼ ½±²-¬·¬«¬·±²¿´ ®·¹¸¬òŒ л¿®-±²
    ªò Ý¿´´¿¸¿²ô ëëë ËòÍò îîíô ïîç Íò ݬò èðèô èïí øîððç÷ò Ü·®µ- ¿®¹«»- ¬¸¿¬ ¸» ¸¿¼ ¿
    ½±²-¬·¬«¬·±²¿´ ®·¹¸¬ ²±¬ ¬± ¾» ¿®®»-¬»¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-»ò •Ì¸» Í«°®»³» ݱ«®¬
    ¸¿- •®»½±¹²·¦»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ·¬ ·- ·²»ª·¬¿¾´» ¬¸¿¬ ´¿© »²º±®½»³»²¬ ±ºº·½·¿´- ©·´´ ·² -±³»
    ½¿-»- ®»¿-±²¿¾´§ ¾«¬ ³·-¬¿µ»²´§ ½±²½´«¼» ¬¸¿¬ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ·- °®»-»²¬òŽŒ α¼·-
    ªò Ý·¬§ ¿²¼ ݱ«²¬§ ±º Í¿² Ú®¿²½·-½±ô ëëè Úòí¼ çêìô çêèóêç ø笸 Ý·®ò îððç÷
    ø¯«±¬·²¹ ß²¼»®-±² ªò Ý®»·¹¸¬±²ô ìèí ËòÍò êíëô êìï øïçèé÷÷ò •Ì¸» ¯«¿´·º·»¼
    ·³³«²·¬§ -¬¿²¼¿®¼ ¹·ª»- ¿³°´» ®±±³ º±® ³·-¬¿µ»² ¶«¼¹³»²¬- ¾§ °®±¬»½¬·²¹ ¿´´ ¾«¬
    ¬¸» °´¿·²´§ ·²½±³°»¬»²¬ ±® ¬¸±-» ©¸± µ²±©·²¹´§ ª·±´¿¬» ¬¸» ´¿©òŒ Ø«²¬»® ªò
    Þ®§¿²¬ô ëðî ËòÍò îîìô îîç øïççï÷ò ̸«-ô ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ·- ©¸»¬¸»® ¿ ®»¿-±²¿¾´»
    ±ºº·½»® ½±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¾»´·»ª»¼ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¬± ¿®®»-¬ »¨·-¬»¼ò ׺ -±ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¸»®»
    ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·³³«²·¬§ò Ø«²¬»®ô ëðî ËòÍò ¿¬ îîéò
    ̸» ³¿¶±®·¬§ ¸±´¼- ¬¸¿¬ ²± ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ±ºº·½»® ½±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ½±²½´«¼»¼ ¬¸»®»
    ©¿- °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¬± ¿®®»-¬ò ر©»ª»®ô ¬¸·- ½¿-» ¸¿- ¿´®»¿¼§ ¾»»² ¬®·»¼ ¬± ¿ ¶«®§ô
    ï
    ¿²¼ ¬¸» ¶«®§ ¼»¿¼´±½µ»¼ ±² ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ±º ©¸»¬¸»® °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¿½¬«¿´´§ »¨·-¬»¼
    ¬± ¿®®»-¬ Ü·®µ-ò ̸» ¼·-¬®·½¬ ½±«®¬ ²±¬»¼ ¬¸¿¬ •¬¸» º¿½¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¶«®§ ·² ¬¸» º·®-¬ ¬®·¿´
    ¼»¿¼´±½µ»¼ ±² ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ±º °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¼·®»½¬´§ -«°°±®¬- ¬¸» ½±²½´«-·±² ¬¸¿¬
    ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ³·²¼- ½±«´¼ ¼·-¿¹®»» ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ·--«»òŒ É» ²»»¼ ¹± ²± º«®¬¸»® ¬¸¿²
    ¬¸¿¬ò ̸» º¿½¬ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ¶«®§ ©¿- -°´·¬ ±² ¬¸» ¯«»-¬·±² ±º ©¸»¬¸»® °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-»
    ¿½¬«¿´´§ »¨·-¬»¼ »-¬¿¾´·-¸»- ¬¸¿¬ ¿ ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ±ºº·½»® ½±«´¼ ¸¿ª» ¾»´·»ª»¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¸»
    ¸¿¼ °®±¾¿¾´» ½¿«-» ¬± ¿®®»-¬ô »ª»² ·º ¸» ¬«®²»¼ ±«¬ ¬± ¾» ©®±²¹ò ̸» ¼·-¬®·½¬ ½±«®¬
    ²±¬»¼ ¬¸·-ô ¾«¬ º¿·´»¼ ¬± ¿°°®»½·¿¬» ¬¸» ®»-«´¬ ¬¸¿¬ ³«-¬ ²»½»--¿®·´§ º±´´±©æ ¬¸»
    ±ºº·½»®- ¸»®» ©»®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ¯«¿´·º·»¼ ·³³«²·¬§ò Ø«²¬»®ô ëðî ËòÍò ¿¬ îîéò
    Í»½±²¼´§ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¿®» ¿´-± »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬± ·³³«²·¬§ º®±³ Ü·®µ-Ž Ú·®-¬
    ß³»²¼³»²¬ ½´¿·³ò ̸» ¼»°«¬·»- ¿®¹«» ¬¸¿¬ ¿ -¸»®·ººŽ- -«¾-¬¿¬·±² ´±¾¾§ ·-
    ¬®¿¼·¬·±²¿´´§ ¿ ²±²ó°«¾´·½ º±®«³ô ¾«¬ ¿°°¿®»²¬´§ ¬¸»®» ©¿- ¿² ±ºº·½·¿´ °±´·½§ ¬± ¸±´¼
    ¬¸·- ´±¾¾§ ±°»² ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ º±® ¬¸» °«®°±-» ±º ´±¼¹·²¹ ½±³°´¿·²¬-ò ̸»®»º±®»ô ¬¸»
    ´±¾¾§ ³«-¬ ¾» ½±²-·¼»®»¼ ¿ ´·³·¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ôï -»» Ú¿·¬¸ Ý»²¬»® ݸ«®½¸
    Ûª¿²¹»´·-¬·½ Ó·²·-¬®·»- ªò Ù´±ª»®ô ìèð Úòí¼ èçïô çðè ø笸 Ý·®ò îððé÷ ¿¾®±¹¿¬»¼ ±²
    ï
    ̸» -¸»®·ººŽ- -«¾-¬¿¬·±² ´±¾¾§ ©¿- ½´»¿®´§ ±°»²»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ ¬±
    ¬®¿²-¿½¬ ´¿© »²º±®½»³»²¬ ¾«-·²»--ô ¾«¬ ¸¿- ²±¬ ¾»»² ±°»²»¼ ¬± ¬¸» °«¾´·½ º±®
    -°»»½¸ ¹»²»®¿´´§ò ׬ ¸¿- ¾»»² ´·³·¬»¼ ¬± ½»®¬¿·² ½¿¬»¹±®·»- ±º -°»»½¸ô ²¿³»´§
    ½±³°´¿·²¬- ¿¾±«¬ ¼»°¿®¬³»²¬ °±´·½·»- ¿²¼ °®±½»¼«®»-ò •ß ´·³·¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ ·- ¿
    -«¾ó½¿¬»¹±®§ ±º ¬¸» ¼»-·¹²¿¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ô ©¸»®» ¬¸» ¹±ª»®²³»²¬ ±°»²- ¿
    ²±²°«¾´·½ º±®«³ ¾«¬ ®»-»®ª»- ¿½½»-- ¬± ·¬ º±® ±²´§ ½»®¬¿·² ¹®±«°- ±® ½¿¬»¹±®·»- ±º
    -°»»½¸òŒ Ú¿·¬¸ Ý»²¬»®ô ìèð Úòí¼ ¿¬ çðè ²òèò
    î
    ±¬¸»® ¹®±«²¼- ·² É·²¬»® ªò Ò¿¬«®¿´ λ-±«®½»- Ü»º»²-» ݱ«²½·´ô ײ½òô ïîç Íò ݬò
    íêë øîððè÷ô ¿²¼ º®»» -°»»½¸ ·² ¬¸» ´±¾¾§ ·- ²±¬ ¿² «²º»¬¬»®»¼ ®·¹¸¬ò •Î»-¬®·½¬·±²-
    ¹±ª»®²·²¹ ¿½½»-- ¬± ¿ ´·³·¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ ¿®» °»®³·¬¬»¼ -± ´±²¹ ¿- ¬¸»§ ¿®»
    ª·»©°±·²¬ ²»«¬®¿´ ¿²¼ ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ·² ´·¹¸¬ ±º ¬¸» °«®°±-» -»®ª»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» º±®«³òŒ ×¼ò
    ̸» ¯«»-¬·±² ·- ©¸»¬¸»® ¬¸» ¼»°«¬·»-Ž •®»-¬®·½¬·±²ôŒ ·ò»òô ¼»³¿²¼·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ Ü·®µ- ´»¿ª»
    ¿²¼ ¿®®»-¬·²¹ ¸·³ ©¸»² ¸» ¼·¼²Ž¬ô ©¿- ®»¿-±²¿¾´» ·² ´·¹¸¬ ±º ¬¸» °«®°±-» -»®ª»¼ ¾§
    ¬¸» º±®«³ò
    ̸» Í«°®»³» ݱ«®¬ ¸¿- »¨°´¿·²»¼ ¬¸¿¬ •²»½»--·¬·»- ±º ½±²º·²·²¹ ¿ º±®«³ ¬±
    ¬¸» ´·³·¬»¼ ¿²¼ ´»¹·¬·³¿¬» °«®°±-»- º±® ©¸·½¸ ·¬ ©¿- ½®»¿¬»¼ ³¿§ ¶«-¬·º§ ¬¸» ͬ¿¬» ·²
    ®»-»®ª·²¹ ·¬ º±® ½»®¬¿·² ¹®±«°- ±® º±® ¬¸» ¼·-½«--·±² ±º ½»®¬¿·² ¬±°·½-òŒ α-»²¾»®¹»®
    ªò 뽬±® ¿²¼ Ê·-·¬±®- ±º ˲·ªò ±º Ê¿òô ëïë ËòÍò èïçô èîç øïççë÷ò λ-¬®·½¬·±²-
    ¾¿-»¼ ±² ½±²¬»²¬ ¿®» °»®³·--·¾´» ·º ¬¸»§ °®»-»®ª» ¬¸» °«®°±-»- º±® ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» º±®«³
    ©¿- ±°»²»¼ò ×¼ò ¿¬ èíðò Ù®¿--± ±®¼»®»¼ Ü·®µ- ¬± ´»¿ª» ¿- -±±² ¿- ¸» ¼»¬»®³·²»¼
    ¬¸¿¬ Ü·®µ- ©¿- ²±¬ ¬¸»®» ¬± ½±³°´¿·² ±º ¬¸» ¼»°¿®¬³»²¬Ž- ´¿© »²º±®½»³»²¬ °±´·½·»-
    Š ¬¸» ®»¿-±² º±® ¬¸» ´±¾¾§Ž- ´·³·¬»¼ °«¾´·½ º±®«³ -¬¿¬«- Š ¾«¬ ®¿¬¸»® ¬± ·²¬»®¶»½¬
    ¸·³-»´º ·²¬± ¬¸» °»²¼·²¹ °»®-±²²»´ ³¿¬¬»® ¾»¬©»»² Ù®¿--± ¿²¼ ¸·- ½¿¼»¬ò ̸«-ô ¬¸»
    ®»-¬®·½¬·±² °´¿½»¼ ±² Ü·®µ-Ž -°»»½¸ •°®»-»®ª»Å-à ¬¸» °«®°±-» º±® ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» º±®«³
    ©¿- ±°»²»¼ôŒ ¿²¼ ·- ¬¸»®»º±®» ®»¿-±²¿¾´»ò α-»²¾»®¹»®ô ëïë ËòÍò ¿¬ èíðò ̸»
    ®»-¬®·½¬·±² ©¿- ª·»©°±·²¬ ²»«¬®¿´ ·² ¬¸¿¬ Ù®¿--± ½«¬ ±ºº ¿´´ -°»»½¸ ®»¹¿®¼·²¹
    í
    °»®-±²²»´ ¿½¬·±²-ô ®»¹¿®¼´»-- ±º ©¸·½¸ -·¼» ¬¸»§ ©»®» ±²òî Í»» Ú¿·¬¸ Ý»²¬»®ô ìèð
    Úòí¼ ¿¬ çïîò
    Í·²½» ¬¸» ®»-¬®·½¬·±² ±² Ü·®µ-Ž -°»»½¸ ©¿- ®»¿-±²¿¾´»ô ½±²¬»²¬ó¾¿-»¼ ø®¿¬¸»®
    ¬¸¿² ª·»©°±·²¬ó¾¿-»¼÷ô ¿²¼ °®»-»®ª»¼ ¬¸» °«®°±-» º±® ©¸·½¸ ¬¸» º±®«³ ©¿- ¸»´¼
    ±°»²ô ¸·- ¿®®»-¬ ©¿- ²±¬ ¿ ª·±´¿¬·±² ±º Ü·®µ-Ž Ú·®-¬ ß³»²¼³»²¬ º®»»¼±³ ±º -°»»½¸
    ®·¹¸¬-ò α-»²¾»®¹»®ô ëïë ËòÍò ¿¬ èíðò ̸»®»º±®»ô ¬¸» ±ºº·½»®- ¿®» »²¬·¬´»¼ ¬±
    ·³³«²·¬§ º®±³ Ü·®µ-Ž Ú·®-¬ ß³»²¼³»²¬ ½´¿·³ ¿- ©»´´ ¿- ¸·- º¿´-» ¿®®»-¬ ½´¿·³ò ×
    ®»-°»½¬º«´´§ ¼·--»²¬ò
    î
    ̸» ®»-¬®·½¬·±² ³·¹¸¬ ²±¬ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ª·»©°±·²¬ó²»«¬®¿´ ·ºô º±® »¨¿³°´»ô
    ·¬ °®±¸·¾·¬»¼ -°»»½¸ ½±²¼»³²·²¹ ¬¸» ¼»°¿®¬³»²¬Ž- °»®-±²²»´ ¿½¬·±²-ô ¾«¬ ¿´´±©»¼
    -°»»½¸ º¿ª±®¿¾´» ¬± ¬¸»³ò
    ì