Spurlock v. City of San Francisco

1

WALTER SPURLOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al.,Defendants.

No. 23-cv-04429-AMO

United States District Court, N.D. California

August 5, 2024

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

RE: DKT. NO. 47

ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Defendants' motion to dismiss was heard before this Court on July 3 2024. Having read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments therein and those made at the hearing, as well as the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion for the following reasons.

I. BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiffs Walter Spurlock and Andre Guibert were Aviation Maintenance Technicians at San Francisco International Airport (“SFO,” or “the Airport”), employed by Alaska Airlines, Inc. Second Am. Compl. (ECF 43, “SAC”) ¶ 1. The pair sue Defendants the City and County of San Francisco, the Airport Commission of the City and County of San Francisco, Keaboka Molwane in his individual capacity and official capacity as Aviation Security and Regulatory Compliance Officer at SFO, and Jeff Littlefield in his individual capacity and official capacity as Chief Operating Officer at SFO (collectively, “Defendants”), following revocation of Spurlock's and Guibert's security clearance badges.

A. Airport Security Regulations

The Airport is obligated under federal law to help ensure secure and safe operations. All commercial service airports within the United States are required to develop an Airport Security Plan (“ASP”) and submit the plan to the Transportation Security Administration (“TSA”) for approval. 49 C.F.R. pt. 1542 et seq. The ASP must include, among other things, a description of Security Identification Display Areas (“SIDAs”) and procedures to prevent unauthorized presence and movement in the SIDAs. Id. § 1542.201-205; see also SAC ¶¶ 2, 21. Airports must carefully vet the employment and criminal history of airport workers who will have access to the SIDAs and conduct training before providing unescorted access to any secured area. 49 C.F.R. §§ 1542.201-205, 209-213; see also SAC ¶¶ 20-21.

In addition to these security requirements, airports with commercial air service, like SFO, must comply with extensive safety regulations under 14 C.F.R. part 139. Airports are required to ensure that all personnel with access to aircraft movement areas and safety areas are trained to perform their duties in compliance with Part 139 requirements. Id. § 139.303. This training includes familiarization with airport systems, procedures for access to and operation within movement and safety areas, airport radio and air traffic communications, and other duties specific to job requirements. Id.

The Airport maintains a set of Rules and Regulations, in part to comply with federal law, that pertain to Airport security and security badges, among other things. SAC, Ex. A. Those rules make clear that “[a]ny person holding an Airport-issued security badge does so as a privilege and not a right.” Id. at 62 (Rule 7.2). Further, Rule 7.2(D) provides: “Any person who violates this Rule 7, compromises Airport security, or creates or engages or participates in any unsafe, unsecure, or hazardous condition or activity at the Airport may have access privileges immediately revoked on a temporary or permanent basis at the sole discretion of the Airport[.]” Id.

The Rules and Regulations elsewhere reiterate that “[i]ndividual infractions . . . relating to the safety or security of the Airport may result in the immediate suspension or permanent revocation of an Airport ID badge . . . at the sole discretion of the Airport.” SAC ¶ 52, Ex. A at 103 (Rule 14.4). The Rules and Regulations also set forth an administrative review and appeal procedure for those seeking to challenge a citation issued by the Airport. SAC, Ex. A at 105 (Rule 14.5). And while Rule 14.4 sets forth a penalty schedule for violations of Rule 7 (Airport Security), it also specifically provides that any infraction may result in the “immediate suspension or permanent revocation of an Airport ID badge . . . at the sole discretion of the Airport, notwithstanding the Admonishment or Citation procedures [above].” SAC ¶¶ 51-52 (quoting Rule 14.4).

B. The Airport Revokes Spurlock's and Guibert's SIDA Badges for Security Violations

On the morning of September 9, 2021, Spurlock and Guibert reported to an external security checkpoint at SFO. SAC ¶ 24. To proceed through this checkpoint, they were required to swipe their SIDA badges at a reader, use a biometric scanner, and proceed through a turnstile. SAC ¶ 25.

Guibert proceeded through the turnstile without incident. SAC ¶ 26. However, Spurlock was unable to gain entry because the turnstile malfunctioned halfway through its rotation. Id. Rather than report the issue to Airport Security, as they were trained and as a sign at the checkpoint advised them to do in this situation (SAC, Ex. B at 2, 4-5), “Spurlock passed his SIDA badge, from the non-SIDA side, to Guibert, on the SIDA side, and Guibert placed Spurlock's badge on the outgoing badge reader, to reset the badge reader system.” SAC ¶ 27. Spurlock and Guibert proceeded through that checkpoint as well as another checkpoint and then began to complete assigned maintenance work. SAC ¶¶ 27-29. Later that day, SFO security officers issued citations to Spurlock and Guibert and suspended their SIDA badges. SAC ¶ 30.

C. Spurlock and Guibert Appeal the Revocation of their SIDA Badges

Pursuant to Airport Rule 14.5, Spurlock and Guibert were entitled to “seek review of a Citation and, following the review, [ ] appeal from a decision affirming or amending the Citation.” SAC, Ex. A at 105 (Rule 14.5). Spurlock and Guibert availed themselves of this appeal procedure. SAC ¶ 31.

On September 14, 2021, following a review of the incident, Keaboka Molwane, an Aviation Security and Regulatory Compliance Officer, provided notice that the Airport decided to permanently revoke Spurlock's and Guibert's SIDA badges. SAC ¶¶ 14, 36. In Guibert's notice, the Airport stated that he had “committed multiple aviation security violations and actively compromised the security of the Airport.” SAC, Ex. B at p. 2. The letter informed Guibert that he violated Rule 7.7 by circumventing the security turnstile, and also violated Rule 7.3 by “receiving and using another person's Airport ID badge.” Id. The letter noted that the Airport had sent multiple security reminders to Airport ID badge holders, including a July 27, 2021 communication stating that, “[i]f you are unable to gain access at a Direct Access Point reader . . . for any reason -you MUST either try a different access point or contact the Airport's Security Operations Center .... Any other actions taken to gain access will result in enforcement action, up to and including the possibility of Airport ID badge revocation.” Id. at 2, 4.

Spurlock and Guibert were advised that they had a right to appeal the revocations (SAC, Ex. B at 3), and they sought such an appeal (SAC ¶ 37). The appeal was denied on October 23, 2021. SAC ¶ 42. In an October 26, 2021 letter to Guibert signed by Littlefield, the Airport again found that Spurlock's and Guibert's actions “facilitated circumvention of a secured access point” in violation of the Airport Rules and Regulations. SAC, Ex. C at 2. The letter concluded: “[w]e understand that, in retrospect, you acknowledge the seriousness of your actions. We cannot put Airport security at risk.... This decision is final.” Id.

D. The Airport Submits Spurlock's and Guibert's Names to the Centralized Revocation Database

Pursuant to statute, the TSA maintains a database, known as the Centralized Revocation Database (“CRD”), “containing the names of individuals who have had airport-issued SIDA badges revoked for failure to comply with aviation security requirements.” SAC ¶ 56.

Defendants placed Spurlock's and Guibert's names on the CRD without notice. SAC ¶¶ 74-75. Being listed on the CRD “has a stigmatizing effect and has negatively impacted' reputation in the airline industry.” SAC ¶ 46. Spurlock and Guibert have been denied SIDA badges at other airports because their names are listed on the CRD. Id.

E. Procedural History

Spurlock and Guibert filed the instant action on August 28, 2023, and they have amended their complaint twice since. Spurlock and Guibert assert three causes of action under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a fourth claim arising under TSA Guidance. In Count 1, Spurlock and Guibert allege Defendants violated their right to procedural Due Process during their badge revocation proceedings. SAC ¶¶ 61-70. In Count 2, Spurlock and Guibert allege Defendants failed to provide them with notice and a means of challenging their placement on the CRD, also in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's procedural Due Process protections. SAC ¶¶ 71-77. In Count 3, Spurlock and Guibert allege that the revocation of their SIDA badges and placement of their names on the CRD violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. SAC ¶¶ 78-81. In Count 4, Spurlock and Guibert allege that Defendants' revocation of their airport security badges and placement of their names on the CRD violated relevant TSA Guidance. SAC ¶¶ 82-85.^[2]

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants move to dismiss Spurlock's and Guibert's SAC for failure to state a claim. A motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests for the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. Ileto v. Glock, 349 F.3d 1191, 1199-1200 (9th Cir. 2003). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires that a complaint include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), a...