676 F. App'x 661
9th Cir.2017Background
- Charles Kinney sued the State Bar of California, two California state judges, the City of Los Angeles, and three City employees (Langsfeld, Cooper, Tanijiri) asserting § 1983 claims, First Amendment retaliation, and other state-law related claims arising from Bar complaints and state-court vexatious-litigant rulings.
- The district court dismissed many claims and granted summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds for one defendant; Kinney appealed those rulings and a denial of his motion to disqualify the district judge.
- The district court dismissed State Bar claims on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and dismissed claims against state judges based on judicial immunity.
- Kinney alleged Langsfeld retaliated in violation of the First Amendment, but the complaint failed to plead a chilling effect on his protected activity; he also sought federal injunctive relief to overturn state-court vexatious-litigant rulings.
- Kinney’s municipal claims against the City failed for lack of standing for generalized procedural grievances and for failure to plead a municipal policy, custom, or final policymaker liability under Monell.
- The court held Cooper had absolute witness immunity for her complaint to the State Bar, and the district court properly disregarded Kinney’s uncorroborated testimony when adjudicating tolling/statute-of-limitations issues for Tanijiri.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity for State Bar | Kinney challenged State Bar actions; sought relief | State Bar is immune from suit under Eleventh Amendment | Dismissal affirmed; Eleventh Amendment bars claims against State Bar |
| Judicial immunity for state judges | Judges’ actions were wrongful and non-immune | Judicial acts are protected by absolute judicial immunity | Dismissal affirmed; judges entitled to judicial immunity |
| First Amendment retaliation against Langsfeld | Langsfeld’s actions chilled Kinney’s protected speech and merit relief | Actions did not produce or plausibly threaten a chilling effect | Dismissal affirmed; pleading insufficient to show chilling effect |
| Federal injunctive relief to overturn state vexatious-litigant rulings | Kinney sought injunction against state-court determinations | Federal courts lack power to directly review state-court decisions | Relief barred; federal courts cannot sit in direct review of state decisions |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (City of LA) | City failed to follow civil codes and maintained improper customs/policies causing violations | Kinney lacked standing for generalized grievances and failed to plead a specific widespread policy or final policymaker action | Dismissal affirmed for lack of standing and failure to plead Monell liability |
| Absolute witness immunity for Cooper | Cooper’s Bar complaint was actionable | Communications to prompt official investigation are absolutely privileged | Dismissal affirmed; Cooper entitled to absolute witness immunity |
| Statute of limitations re Tanijiri | Kinney disputed timing and facts to toll limitations | District court properly discounted uncorroborated, self-serving testimony | Summary judgment affirmed; statute of limitations bar upheld |
| Motion to disqualify district judge | Kinney sought judge disqualification | Motion lacked factual or legal merit | Denial affirmed; reviewed for abuse of discretion and not shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir.) (standards for reviewing summary judgment)
- Honey v. Distelrath, 195 F.3d 531 (9th Cir.) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Miller v. Glen & Helen Aircraft, Inc., 777 F.2d 496 (9th Cir.) (motion-to-dismiss standard)
- Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708 (9th Cir.) (State Bar immunity and related principles)
- Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072 (9th Cir.) (absolute judicial immunity)
- Lacey v. Maricopa Cty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir.) (First Amendment chilling-effect pleading requirements)
- Atl. Coast Line R.R. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281 (U.S.) (federal courts cannot directly review state-court decisions)
- Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (U.S.) (standing limits for generalized grievances)
- Ulrich v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 308 F.3d 968 (9th Cir.) (Monell pleading requirements for municipal liability)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S.) (municipal liability under § 1983)
- Burns v. Cty. of King, 883 F.2d 819 (9th Cir.) (absolute privilege for communications prompting official investigation)
- Kennedy v. Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477 (9th Cir.) (disregarding self-serving, uncorroborated testimony in summary judgment analysis)