From Judge William Alsup’s interim order filed Tuesday. Doe v. City of Hayward (N.D. Cal.) (I will also post about the issue of anonymity in this case in the next few days):
plaintiff, [self-represented] A Bay Area professor describes himself as a “victim of serial crime.” Between July 2010 and June 2016, the plaintiff filed seven criminal complaints and her family filed five additional criminal complaints. No specific dates or details were reported in the complaint, but the complaint implicated crimes including “heavy metal poisoning, dog attacks, and property tampering.” [redacted] Vehicle; carjacking/attempted robbery. [and] attempted kidnapping of [redacted] My son. ” Many, if not all, of these criminal charges were filed with the Hayward Police Department.
The plaintiff attached two reports to the opposition. The first, by Bardwell Consulting, concludes:[plaintiff] and her family [sic] They are exposed to a level of crime that cannot be explained by chance. ” The second report, attributed to Phyllis Gerstenfeld, concluded:[plaintiff] ‘Targeted because of her gender’ and ‘Technology [used by the perpetrators] This suggests a sophism more common in organized political projects than in personal vendettas. ” Gerstenfeld concludes:[plaintiff] “is a victim of a hate crime” and “domestic terrorism charges may be successfully brought against the victim.” [plaintiff] A third report, mentioned but not on record, is attributed to Dr. Liu and purports to analyze the origins of the technology used by those who victimized the plaintiffs. It is being said.
At issue here is plaintiff’s recent criminal complaint against HPD. On May 27, 2022, Plaintiff went to the HPD station to file a police report regarding an alleged sexual assault, assault, and hate crime. The plaintiff states that “a foreign object was removed from her intimate area, she did not consent to this insertion, her husband was a witness to its location and removal, and the Institute of Engineering identified the foreign object as an electronic device. It has been identified as.” Semiconductors; have a PhD in electrical engineering… Dr. Liu had identified the lab that designed and manufactured this device. ”
The plaintiff now alleges that the police defendants harassed her when she filed a report on May 27 and then retaliated against her for filing that report. These allegations fall into three categories: the actions taken on May 27, the inaccuracies in the resulting report, and her subsequent inaction despite the plaintiff’s repeated requests for follow-up. .
beginning, On May 27, the complainant had to wait at the police station for an hour and a half until a statement was taken. The defendant then “caused” [plaintiff] I feel like I’m surrounded by three white men [Officers Daniel Morgan and Alex Iwanicki and social worker Tim Henry] Officers listened to the plaintiff’s statement in the parking lot, interviewed her husband who was nearby, and reviewed a report provided by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then spoke with a social worker. Ms. Henry provided her with a pamphlet outlining the mental health services available to her. The plaintiff claims these actions were intended to harass her.
Number 2, Plaintiffs allege that the resulting police disposition report contained several inaccuracies and falsehoods. For example, the report states:[a]All reports [plaintiff] The information I downloaded from the internet didn’t tell me the simple fact of how these tiny (half-inch resistors) appeared inside her vagina. These reports were neither helpful nor relevant. ” But the plaintiff says these reports evaluated evidence specific to her case and “her status as a victim of a crime.”
The report states that after Officer Morgan spoke with the complainant’s husband, “no new evidence of a crime was found.” But her plaintiff claims that her husband provided new evidence of her crime at hand. The report states that the plaintiffs “offered no reasonable explanation.”In other words, The plaintiff said that “possible causes include recent surgery, sexual assault, suspect, etc.” and that she was only interested in “investigating the company that manufactured the electronic equipment that supports her conspiracy theory.” and that the plaintiffs are, in fact, “not only under a systematic investigation.” “When she investigated companies that manufactured electronic equipment,” she said, she did not mention any “conspiracy theories.”
Finally, the report purportedly states, “An Alameda County mental health clinician was interviewed.” [plaintiff] The plaintiff said this characterization of her mental health was false, and that the Alameda County Department of Behavior later stated that the clinician (presumably social worker Henry) “never gave her a negative evaluation.” Ta. About her mental health.
The third, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant retaliated against her after she filed the report. Plaintiff sent emails to various defendants on May 27, June 1, June 4, November 27, December 26, 2022, and January 3 and February 14, 2023. sent. In these emails, the plaintiff asked the defendant to make various changes to the May document. She will produce 27 reports, to which she will attach her own “expert report”. The defendant took no action. Plaintiff’s November 27 communication contained her complaint internally to HPD and was forwarded to the City Attorney’s Office…
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, and the court issued a preliminary ruling that the lawsuit should be dismissed.
[T]Criminal charges fall within the scope of the First Amendment right to petition. The plaintiffs were allowed to exercise their rights on May 27th. The defendant met with the plaintiff and her husband, reviewed the expert report submitted by her, and issued her disposition report. That’s all there is to a petition promise. Plaintiffs are not entitled to specific investigation or prosecution.
The plaintiff’s subsequent petition was also heard. The plaintiff’s complaint, dated November 27, 2022, and addressed internally to HPD, was immediately forwarded to the City Attorney’s Office, which investigated and determined it to be unfounded. Plaintiff’s complaints against Alameda County Behavioral Health Services were also investigated. The plaintiff was interviewed by Chief Compliance Officer Dr. Ravi Mehta, who reviewed the plaintiff’s claims with his crisis management team and concluded that his staff followed proper procedures and did not engage in any wrongdoing. Reached. If the defendant fails to follow up, the plaintiff’s remedy lies at the polls, not in federal court under this theory.
A plaintiff’s right to petition includes the right to petition without retaliation.
“The First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against individuals who speak out. To recover such retaliation under Section 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) He was engaged in a constitutionally protected activity; (2) As a result, he was subjected to conduct that would cause an ordinary, sane person to engage in a protected activity. (3) There was a substantial causal connection between the constitutionally protected activity and the adverse conduct.”
As stated above, Defendant’s actions since May 27 are completely unremarkable and fail the second point above.
However, plaintiff’s contention that defendant’s disposition report contained false statements attacking plaintiff’s mental health and credibility in order to deter further complaints is arguable. First Amendment retaliation claims generally concern “an exercise of governmental power that is restrictive, directive, or coercive in nature and has the effect of punishing someone’s speech.” Here, the plaintiff instead alleges that the defendant chilled her right to petition through her own speech (In other words, contents of the disposition report).
The hurdles for claiming retaliation based on government speech are high. As our appellate court explained, mulligan:
Retaliation claims related to government speech require careful handling by courts. Restricting government decision-makers’ ability to speak runs the risk of hindering their ability to effectively carry out their duties. It also ignores the competing First Amendment rights of officials themselves. The First Amendment is intended to maintain a free marketplace of ideas, where truth ultimately prevails. If public officials are prevented from responding to public discourse with their own words, the market for ideas is harmed. Consistent with these principles, we have set a high bar when analyzing whether a government official’s speech is sufficiently prejudicial to give rise to a First Amendment retaliation claim.
It is beyond gibberish that “defamation is not actionable under section 1983 unless there is a more tangible benefit involved.” …Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants … made derogatory statements about her mental health through her disposition report in retaliation for her filing a complaint. There is little doubt that the plaintiff’s allegations, if deemed true, would reflect poorly on the defendant and amount to unprofessional and regrettable conduct by a public official. Nevertheless, given the high standard for retaliation claims based on government speech, plaintiffs’ claims do not give rise to federal claims. Plaintiffs allege that nothing in Defendants’ statements or actions suggests that any form of punishment, sanction, or adverse action is imminent. He also did not suggest that her defendant’s speech negatively affected her “rights, interests, relationships, or standing with the state.”
The plaintiff says, “[w]”Despite provocation, Defendant threatened Plaintiff with a 5150 before calling an emergency manager or mental health worker and speaking with Plaintiff to receive a report.” Refers to Section 5150 of the Institutions Act, Involuntary Detention of Individuals Deemed Dangerous Due to Mental Health Impairment.Using involuntary detention as a threat strengthens plaintiffs’ case.
However, plaintiff’s complaint does not allege facts that support her conclusion that the mental health worker’s involvement would result in an imminent penalty, sanction, or adverse action. Given the nature of her complaint, it would be reasonable for the police to call in an impartial health expert to assist. Both sides agree that a social worker was among the group that met with the plaintiff and gave him a pamphlet outlining the mental health services available to him. The decision to involve a social worker or similarly trained personnel in an interaction with a person whom the police suspect (justifiably or unreasonably) has a mental health problem is itself a matter of police discretion. A perfectly appropriate exercise.
The complaint also states:[d]defendant [Morgan and Iwanicki] “Social worker Tim Henry also approached the plaintiff while the plaintiff was sitting in her car, made the plaintiff feel surrounded by the plaintiff, and threatened the plaintiff.” A reasonable and unavoidable precondition for acceptance was that she had come to the station to file a criminal complaint. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff identified the three as “white males” does not suggest the existence of any threat of intimidation or sanctions, and no threatening or prejudicial acts or comments beyond those described above are alleged. However, it falls well below the high standards of this circuit court. .
Plaintiff alleges that HPD officers have long been indifferent to her complaints, denying her redress against the wrongdoers, and in recent instances retaliating against her to discourage further charges. expressed his opinion. Nevertheless, there is no adequate remedy in federal court…. ”[F]or defamation and damage resulting therefrom. [plaintiff] Tort remedies are based on state law, not the First Amendment. ”
Sadly, courts receive little assistance from lawyers regarding relevant case law, and much of the work described above was performed by judges and their staff. Therefore, this is provisional orderand both sides take time until March 19th noon Submit criticism of this order and give reasons why this order should not be submitted. If the court considers that a more responsive briefing would be beneficial, it will advise against it….
