659 F. App'x 937
9th Cir.2016Background
- Kulkarni sued 18 defendants (state, federal, individual) alleging a conspiracy to deprive him of access to his son and wrongful participation in California civil/criminal proceedings after an abduction. He pleaded >30 federal and state claims.
- District court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on multiple grounds: lack of jurisdiction over the U.S. State Department, failure to state federal claims, anti‑SLAPP dismissal of state tort claims against individuals, and bar under Noerr‑Pennington.
- Kulkarni sought expedited discovery before dispositions; the magistrate denied it and the district court refused leave to amend as futile.
- Central factual/legal disputes involved (1) whether federal agencies and private actors can be sued under Bivens or § 1983/§ 1985 theories, (2) whether Orange County Social Services Agency (OCSSA) had a Monell policy or custom, (3) whether California claim‑presentation rules were followed for claims against a public entity, and (4) whether the anti‑SLAPP, litigation privilege, and Noerr‑Pennington doctrines protected the defendants.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court in full, rejecting Kulkarni’s jurisdictional and substantive theories and upholding denial of expedited discovery and leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Can USDOS be sued under Bivens? | Kulkarni asserted a Bivens claim against USDOS for constitutional violations. | USDOS argued agencies are not proper Bivens defendants. | Dismissed: federal agencies cannot be sued in Bivens actions. |
| 2. Did OCSSA have a policy/custom causing §1983 violation (Monell)? | Kulkarni alleged OCSSA policies caused deprivation of rights. | OCSSA argued no plausible allegations of a policy/custom; failure to state a §1983 claim. | Dismissed: no Monell claim; no underlying §1983, so §1985/§1986 fail. |
| 3. Are state tort claims against OCSSA barred for failure to present claims? | Kulkarni argued merits of state tort claims. | OCSSA invoked California Government Code notice/presentation requirements. | Dismissed: Kulkarni failed to allege compliance with mandatory claim‑presentation rules. |
| 4. Do anti‑SLAPP, litigation privilege, and attorney‑client privilege bar state tort claims against individual defendants? | Kulkarni contended the state torts (fraud, defamation, IIED, interference, etc.) were actionable. | Defendants argued their court‑related statements and attorney acts are protected petitioning conduct and privileged. | Struck: anti‑SLAPP applies; privileges immunize defendants and plaintiff cannot show probability of prevailing. |
| 5. Did plaintiff plausibly allege conspiracy/joint action with government to state federal claims against individuals? | Kulkarni alleged a state/federal/private conspiracy under §§1983, 1985, 1986, and Bivens. | Defendants argued no meeting of the minds or joint participation linking private actors to state/federal actors; Noerr‑Pennington immunity for petitioning. | Dismissed: no plausible conspiracy/joint action alleged; Noerr‑Pennington bars federal claims. |
| 6. Was denial of expedited discovery and leave to amend improper? | Kulkarni sought expedited discovery pre‑motion resolution and leave to amend. | Court: discovery would be burdensome and no good cause shown; amendment would be futile. | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion on discovery; denial of leave to amend not error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (establishing direct action for constitutional violations by federal officers)
- F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (federal agencies are not proper Bivens defendants)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability requires policy or custom)
- Caldeira v. Cty. of Kauai, 866 F.2d 1175 (§1985 conspiracy with government requires a meeting of the minds)
- Kearney v. Foley & Lardner, LLP, 590 F.3d 638 (Noerr‑Pennington protects petitioning conduct, including access to courts)
- Schowengerdt v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 823 F.2d 1328 (private actors must jointly participate with government to be treated as federal actors)