• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
12
aJ/1T
56891011t213t4
1'.-i
r\'=
\r'E..È
q)ã
iì_-
u)ö^ç(Ò=a')F
:lr¡Y
(taz
o
ê)ã
15T6t71879202l222324252'6
an
Ff[ffiffi
JUNo2005
R,CHARD
,o^ïHÍ,y,s;ß
IN THETINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOI'RTFORTHENORTHERNDISTRICTOF CAIIFORNIARUSSELLAILENNORDYKE,et al.,-Plaintiffs,
V.
MARYV.KING,et al.,Defendants.No.C 99-04389}{JJORDER GRANTINGIN PART ANDDET\IYINGN PART DEFENDANTS'MOTIONTO DISMISS
INTRODUCTIONktthis 42U.S.C.$1983action,MaryV.King and theCounty ofAlameda, et al.("Defendants")moveto dismissRussellAllenNordyke's,et al.("Plaintiffs")secondamendedcomplaint.For thereasonssetforthbelow.theCourtGRA¡ITS IN PARTAND DENIES INPARTDefendants'motion.FACTUALBACKGROUNDThis casearosewhenanAlamedaCountyordinanceprohibitingfirearmspossessiononcounty-ownedproperty("theOrdinance")allegedly preventedPlaintiffs from continuing theirbusinessof organizing guntrade showsonAlamedaCountyFairgrounds.Plaintiffs haveegallyconductedradeshowsonthe fairgroundssinceFebruaryTggL The AlamedaCountyBoard ofSupervisorsadoptedheOrdinanceonAugust17, 1999.'Whilegunshowswere notbannedperse,theOrdinanceeffectivelyprohibitedanyactualgunsfrombeingshown,used or soldon thefairprounds.
28
PlaintiffsinitiallyclaimedthattheOrdinanceeffectivelyputa stop to their businessand
 
I
12
aJ
4568910l1t213t415t6T718
¡
\./.5
+.JH
()Efr¿iioçt)-a
^*
r-i.Ãrâ=(.)Ft)Y*¡o
(t)z()b
.|-)f!
(:
t9202l22232425262728
subsequentlyileda Motionfor aTemporaryRestrainingOrder and Injunctive Relief. On November3,1999,thisCourtdeniedheaforementionedotions.Followingan nterlocutoryappeal,heNinthCircuitcertifieda questionofstateawregardinga state awpreemptionssueo theCaliforniaSupremeCourt.On April22,2002,theCaliforniaSupremeCourtissued ts answerand onFebruary18,2003,heNinthCircuit issuedtsrulingupholdingheCourt's orderdenyingPlaintiffs'requestforapreliminaryinjunction.TheNinthCircuitdenied Plaintifß'request for einbancyeviewandheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtsubsequentlyeniedcertiorari.On February14,2005,theCourfgrantednpartand denied npartPlaintifß'motionto f,rleasecondamendedcomplaint.Specifically,theCourt denied Plaintiffs' motionforleave to addaSecondAmendmentclaim,aNinthAmendmentclaim,and to add new Alameda Country boardmembersasDefendants.However,theCourtgrantedPlaintiffsleaveo amend heirComplaint toadd"asapplied"challengesotheir FirstAmendmentclaims. Plaintiffs filed a secondamendedcomplainton March11,2005.ln theirSecondAmendedComplaint,Plaintifßassert hat,as appliedto theiruseof thefairgrounds,heOrdinancehasheeffectof banning gunshows. Plaintiffs alsoallege hat theOrdinancewasdesignedohave heeffectofdrivingPlaintiffs out of business n NorthemCalifornia.LEGALSTA}IDARDA Rule12(bX6)motiontoclismissestshe legalsufficiency of the claimsassertedn thecomplaint.Cahíllv. LibertyMuL Ins.Co.,8OF.3d336, 337(gthCir.1996). Dismissalofanactionpursuaq[toRule12(b)(6)sappropriateonlywhereit"appearsbeyond doubt thattheplaintiffcanprovenosetof factsnsupportof hisclaimwhichwould entitlehimto relief." Levine v.Díamanthuset,nc.,950F.2d1478,1482 9thCir. l99l).!Indetermininga motiontodismiss,courtsmustassumeall factual allegationsobe true andmust construeheminthelightmost favorableto thenon-movingparty.SeeN.StarInt'lv.Ariz.Corp.Comm'n,720F.2d578,5309thCir. 1983).However,courtsneednot accept srueunreasonablenferences,unwarranteddeductionsof fact, or conclusorylegal allegationscastn theformof factualallegations.S¿¿W.MiningCouncilv.Watt,643F.2d6L8,624(9thCir.1981).
 
il
i"
12
aJ
45678910117213l415T6t718
r9
\J.5.È)::(.)F
'-vØö
-1.2
Ø=
q)F*)xsËE
-L)O
U\Z
o
()5
+)fr
202122232425262728
Courtswill dismisshe complaintor any claiminit without leave to amendonlyif"itisclear, upondenovo review,thatthecomplaintcouldnot be savedby anyamendment." Schneiderv-Cal.Dep'tofCorr.,l51F.3d IIg4,!196(9thCir. 1998).ANALYSIS"Section1983providesacauseof actionor thedeprivationof any rights,privileges,orimmunitiessecuredby theConstitution andaws'of theUnited States." Wilderv.Virg.Hosp.Ass'n,496U.S.498,508(1990)quoting42U.S.C.$1983).Tostatea claim underg1983,aplaintiffmustallegewo essentialelements: 1)that arightsecuredby theConstitutionor lawsof theUnitedStateswasviolatedand(2)thattheallegedviolationwas committed byaperson acting under hecolorof stateaw,statute,ordinance,egulationcustom,or usage. SeeWestv. Atkins,487TJ.S.2,a8(1988);Ketchumv.AlamedaCounty,8llF.2d 1243,12459thCir.Ig87).LFirstAmendmentClaimsA.Free ExpressionPlaintiffsallegehat theOrdinanceviolatestheirfreedomof expressionunderheFirstAmendmentsincet makesgunshows at thefairgrounds "virtuallyimpossible."WhilethisCourtpreviouslyassumedhatPlaintifß'FirstAmendmentclaims were"as applied" challenges,he NinthCircuit construedPlaintiffs'challengesotheOrdinanceas facial challenges SeeNordykev. King,319F.3d at 11909thCir. 2003).While theNordykecourt rejectedPlaintiff sFirst AmendmentfacialchallengeotheOrdinance,he courtalso notedthat its holding didnot forecloseafuture asappliedchallengeotheordinance.Id. at 1190n. 3. The court explainedthat:--Grurpossessionanbespeechwhere theres an intent to conveyapartic;.tlanzedmessage,ndthe likelihoodisgreathat themessagewouldbe understoodbythosewhoviewed it.As thedistrictcourtnoted, a-gunprotestorburningagunmaybeengagednexpressiveconduct.So might agqnsupporterwaivingagunatan anti-guncontrolrally. . .. Typicallyapeison péssessìñgagunhasnointentto conveyaparticularmessage,oris anyparticulaimessageikely to beunderstoodbythosewho viewit. Thelawitself appliesbroadlyto ban thepossessionf allgunsorwhateverreasononCountyproperty.Id. at| 190(citations,nternalquotationmarks,and alteration omitted).As theCourtpreviouslynoted n itspreliminaryinjunctionorder, the SupremeCourt haswarnedthat theresa"limitlessvariety ofconducthat can be'speech'whenevertheconduct ntendstherebytoexpressnidea."UnitedStatesv.O'Brìen,391U.S. 367,376(1968).Theprotectionis
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...