Summary
finding that the First Amendment did not cover intimate-association claims brought by adult siblings
Summary of this case from Jeremiah M. v. CrumOpinion
21-15440
06-14-2022
ROBERT MANN, Sr.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants, and ZACHARY MANN; WILLIAM MANN, Plaintiffs, and JOHN C. TENNIS; RANDY R. LOZOYA, Defendants-Appellants.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Argued and Submitted April 19, 2022 Seattle, Washington
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01201-WBS-DB William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Before: GOULD and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, [**] District Judge.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Defendants John Tennis and Randy Lozoya appeal from the district court's order denying their motion to dismiss plaintiffs Robert Mann Sr., Vern Murphy-Mann, and Deborah Mann's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deprivation of their First Amendment right to familial association with their adult brother who was killed in a police shooting. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we do not recite them here.
We review de novo a district court's denial of qualified immunity on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Dunn v. Castro, 621 F.3d 1196, 1198 (9th Cir. 2010). To determine whether defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, we consider "(1) whether, 'taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, the facts alleged show the officer's conduct violated a constitutional right'; and (2) 'whether the right was clearly established.'" Keates v. Koile, 883 F.3d 1228, 1235 (9th Cir. 2018) (alterations omitted) (quoting Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001), overruled on other grounds by Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236-42 (2009)).
Plaintiffs argue that they have sufficiently alleged a constitutional violation pursuant to Board of Directors of Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte ("Rotary Club"), 481 U.S. 537 (1987), in which the Supreme Court articulated a four-factor test to determine whether the "objective characteristics" of the relationship in question were "sufficiently personal or private to warrant constitutional protection": (1) size of the group, (2) purpose of the group, (3) its selectivity, and (4) "whether others are excluded from critical aspects of the relationship," id. at 545-46.
Neither plaintiffs nor the district court point to any authority that has applied the Rotary Club factors and held that non-cohabitating siblings have a First Amendment right to familial association. See Mann v. City of Sacramento (Mann IV), 521 F.Supp.3d 917, 919-20 (E.D. Cal. 2021). Rotary Club did not recognize such a right. That decision involved an international fraternal organization of almost a million members that argued a state statute requiring local chapters of the organization to admit women members violated the First Amendment right of intimate association. See Rotary Club, 481 U.S. at 539-40. The question presented was whether the relationship between members of the organization was sufficiently intimate to warrant protection pursuant to the First Amendment. Id. at 544-45.
We acknowledge that the juxtaposition of Mann v. City of Sacramento (Mann II), 748 Fed.Appx. 112 (9th Cir. 2018), and Mann v. Sacramento Police Department (Mann III), 803 Fed.Appx. 142 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied sub nom. City of Sacramento, California v. Mann, 141 S.Ct. 622 (2020), caused confusion regarding the viability of plaintiffs' First Amendment claim. Mann II could be read as endorsing the proposition that Ward v. City of San Jose, 967 F.2d 280 (9th Cir. 1991), forecloses plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment and First Amendment claims, see Mann II, 748 Fed.Appx. at 115, but Mann III clarified that "Ward addressed only Fourteenth Amendment intimate-association claims brought by adult siblings," 803 Fed.Appx. at 143 (emphasis added). Mann III "remand[ed] for consideration of Plaintiffs' First Amendment claim under the standard set forth in Rotary Club and its progeny." Id. at 144. On remand, the district court analyzed Rotary Club and its progeny and determined that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a First Amendment violation. Mann IV, 521 F.Supp.3d at 923-27. We disagree. Neither Rotary Club nor its progeny extended the First Amendment to cover the circumstances alleged here.
The district court correctly noted plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment intimate association claims are not at issue because they were foreclosed by Ward, which limited such claims to parents and children. Mann IV, 521 F.Supp.3d at 919-20.
REVERSED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.