Coalition v. Lim

SAVE CCSF COALITION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OLIVER LIM, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05286-SI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

May 27, 2015

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 17, 20

Currently before the Court is defendants' motion to dismiss. Dkts. 17, 20. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendants' motion to dismiss.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This is a civil rights action arising from a student protest at City College of San Francisco ("CCSF") on March 13, 2014. Dkt. 12, Pls.' First Amended Complaint ("FAC") ¶¶ 1, 2. Plaintiffs are Otto Pippenger, a CCSF student and participant in the protest, and Save CCSF Coalition ("Save CCSF"), the organizer and sponsor for the protest. Id. ¶¶ 14, 15. On December 2, 2014, plaintiffs filed this action for alleged violations of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment under Section 1983 and for violations of state law. Dkt. 1, Pls.' Complaint.¹ In their FAC, plaintiffs named multiple defendants. First, plaintiffs identifieddefendants San Francisco Community College District² ("District"), Chancellor Arthur Tyler of CCSF, Chief Andre Barnes of San Francisco Community College District Police Department ("CCSF PD"), Lieutenant Jason Wendt of CCSF PD, Sergeant Don Quintana of CCSF PD, Sergeant Carlos Gaytan of CCSF PD, Officer Julie Torres of CCSF PD, Officer E. McGlaston of CCSF PD, and Officer Igor Boyko of CCSF PD (collectively "Community College defendants"). FAC ¶¶ 17, 19, 20, 22. Second, plaintiffs identified defendants City and County of San Francisco ("City"), Chief Greg Suhr of San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD"), Sergeant Joshua Kumli of SFPD, and Officer Oliver Lim of SFPD (collectively "SF City defendants"). Id. ¶¶ 16, 18, 21.

On February 27, 2015, the Community College defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims contained in plaintiffs' FAC. Dkt. 17, Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss at 1. On March 2, 2015, the SF City defendants filed a joinder in portions of the Community College defendants' motion to dismiss. Dkt. 20, Defs.' Joinder at 1. On April 13, 2015, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion. Dkt. 31, Pls.' Opp. On April 20, 2015, the SF City defendants and the Community College defendants separately filed their replies. Dkts. 32, 34, Defs.' Replies.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In their FAC, plaintiffs allege as follows. In July of 2012, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges decided to terminate CCSF's accreditation. FAC ¶ 14. Attempting to maintain its accreditation status, CCSF made changes to its governance and policies, which resulted in cuts to programs, tuition changes, layoffs, and pay cuts. Id. ¶ 2, 14. Plaintiff Save CCSF formed as a coalition of students, staff, faculty, and community members in response to the changes and to preserve CCSF "as a college that offers affordable and quality education . . . and that addresses the needs of the diverse community in San Francisco." Id. ¶ 14.

On March 13, 2014, plaintiff Save CCSF organized a rally on CCSF's campus to express concerns over the loss of accreditation and to call for the resignation of a trustee and for thereversal of a new tuition policy. Id. ¶¶ 2, 29. Plaintiff Pippenger attended the rally, which began at Ram Plaza on CCSF's main campus. Id. ¶ 29. From Ram Plaza, the rally participants marched to Conlan Hall to demand a meeting with defendant Chancellor Tyler and in the alternative, to conduct a peaceful sit-in. Id. A year earlier, students had held a peaceful sit-in at Conlan Hall without any intervention by the police or administration.³ Id. Although Conlan Hall was open to students and staff at the time of plaintiffs' rally, defendant Chancellor Tyler called for police enforcement from SFPD and CCSF PD, and ordered Conlan Hall to be closed to the protestors. Id. ¶ 30. When protesters attempted to enter Conlan Hall, SFPD and CCSF PD officers "responded with unnecessary and excessive force, shoving and hitting numerous students." Id. ¶ 31.

Plaintiff Pippenger suffered multiple injuries. Id. ¶¶ 32-34. Defendant Sergeant Gaytan of CCSF PD struck Pippenger's wrists at least seven times, fracturing both wrists. Id. ¶ 32. Defendant Officer Lim of SFPD "body slammed" Pippenger to the ground, restrained him, punched him in the back of the head, and smashed his face into the ground, giving Pippenger a concussion. Id. ¶ 33. Then, defendant Sergeant Gaytan of CCSF PD and defendants Officers Torres, Boyko, and McGlaston of CCSF PD carried Pippenger by his fractured wrists up the stairs to an administrator's office. Id. ¶¶ 34, 35. While Pippenger was detained there, defendants failed to provide him with medical attention and repeatedly refused his requests to call his mother. Id. ¶¶ 35, 36. Then, defendants⁴ booked Pippenger into the San Francisco Jail for resisting or interfering with an officer (Cal. Penal Code § 148) and battery on a peace officer (Cal. Penal Code § 243). Id. ¶ 37. Although Pippenger's parents posted bail, he remained in jail from mid-afternoon on March 13 until approximately 6 A.M. the following day. Id.

Pippenger sustained a serious concussion and post-concussion syndrome, fractures to bothwrists, bruises, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Id. ¶ 42. Over the next several months, he suffered from "vomiting, severe headaches, visual disturbances, nightmares, sleep disturbances, flashbacks, fatigue, difficulty reading, difficulty concentrating, fear and anxiety, pain, and limited use of his wrists." Id. At the time the FAC was filed, he was still suffering from his injuries, which have interfered with his schoolwork, his internship, and his daily activities. Id.

Plaintiffs Pippenger and Save CCSF wish to engage in, and associate with, "similar peaceable expressive activity" in the future, but are concerned that they may be subjected to unlawful violence and arrest or disciplinary action. Id. ¶ 43. On March 14, 2014, the day after the demonstration, defendant Chancellor Tyler issued a public statement, which he caused to be disseminated to at least 85,000 people, stating that the student protestors had engaged in "violent outbursts," that a student, impliedly Pippenger, "was witnessed striking an SFPD police officer." Id. ¶ 38. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Chancellor Tyler's statements are false. Id. In addition to potential criminal charges, the CCSF administration stated that Pippenger and members of Save CCSF would be subjected to disciplinary sanctions related to the demonstration. Id.

Based on their factual allegations, plaintiffs bring federal claims against all defendants under Section 1983 for violations of the First Amendment (Claim One), Fourth Amendment (Claim Two), and Fourteenth Amendment (Claim Three). Id. ¶¶ 51-56. Plaintiffs also bring state claims against various defendants for violations of California Education Code § 66301 (Claim Four) and California Civil Code §§ 51.7, 52.1 (Claims Seven and Eight) and for false arrest (Claim Five), false imprisonment (Claim Six), and negligence (Claim Nine). Id. ¶¶ 57-71. The Community College defendants moved to dismiss all claims against them. Dkt. 17, Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss at 1. The SF City defendants joined in portions of the motion. Dkt. 20, Defs.' Joinder.

LEGAL STANDARD

A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2), and a complaint that fails to do so is subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiffmust allege "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). This "facial plausibility" standard requires the plaintiff to allege facts that add up to "more than a sheer possibility that a Defendant has acted unlawfully." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). While courts do not require "heightened fact pleading of specifics," a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to "raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 544, 555. "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Id.

In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a district court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2009). However, a district court is not required to accept as true "allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). If the Court dismisses a complaint, it must decide whether to grant leave to amend. The Ninth Circuit has "repeatedly held that a district court should grant leave to amend even if no request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts." Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

I. Eleventh Amendment

The Community College defendants move to dismiss on grounds that plaintiff's claims against the District and against Chancellor Tyler and Chief Barnes of CCSF PD in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment prohibits...