Gail Harper v. Ryan Lugbauer
709 F. App'x 849
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Gail Harper (pro se) filed a § 1983 action and related state-law claims against the City and County of San Francisco, SFPD, and several individual officers and officials alleging retaliation, harassment, defamation, conspiracy, gender-violence claims, and related violations.
- Defendants moved under California’s anti-SLAPP statute to strike several Civil Code-based claims; the district court granted that motion and awarded attorney’s fees and costs to the City defendants.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on remaining timely § 1983 claims (retaliation, gender-based harassment, state-created danger, equal protection) for failure to show municipal policy/custom or an underlying constitutional violation.
- Defendants also prevailed on summary judgment for the surviving defamation claims; plaintiff failed to identify admissible evidence showing the statements were defamatory.
- Several claims and defendants were dismissed as time-barred under applicable statutes of limitations (2 years for § 1983 personal-injury claims; 1 year for defamation).
- Harper’s procedural challenges (late evidence, extension of discovery, recusal/judge bias) were denied; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of anti‑SLAPP to Civil Code §§ 51, 51.7, 52.4 claims | Harper argued her claims were not subject to strike and were meritorious | City defendants argued claims arose from protected official/judicial activity and were barred by litigation privilege; anti‑SLAPP applies | Anti‑SLAPP applies; district court properly struck those claims and awarded fees/costs |
| Sufficiency of civil conspiracy allegations against Coyle and Page | Harper alleged conspiracy to commit wrongful acts | Defendants argued no facts showed an agreement to commit wrongful acts | Dismissal of conspiracy claims affirmed for failure to plead agreement |
| Timeliness of § 1983 and defamation claims | Harper argued tolling doctrines (discovery rule, continuing violation) made claims timely | Defendants argued applicable California statutes of limitations bar older claims | Court held claims based on conduct before Feb 2009 (§ 1983) and before Feb 2010 (defamation) are time‑barred; tolling doctrines did not apply |
| Municipal liability under § 1983 (Monell) | Harper argued constitutional violations resulted from City policy/practice/custom | Defendants argued no underlying constitutional violation or policy/custom shown | Summary judgment affirmed: no genuine dispute that municipal policy/custom caused constitutional violation |
| Defamation (Coyle, Ertola, Lugbauer) | Harper asserted specific defamatory statements by named defendants | Defendants argued statements were non‑actionable opinion or lacked evidence tying defendants to defamatory statements | Summary judgment for defendants affirmed; plaintiff failed to produce admissible evidence showing actionable false statements |
| Discovery extensions, late evidence, exclusion of exhibits | Harper claimed denial of extensions and exclusion of late evidence was improper and prejudicial | Defendants relied on local rules, procedural deadlines, and lack of good cause | District court did not abuse discretion; exclusion and denial affirmed; any error harmless |
| Judicial bias/recusal | Harper alleged gender bias by district judges | Defendants argued adverse rulings alone do not show bias | Recusal denial affirmed; no reasonable basis to question impartiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.) (standards for de novo review of 12(b)(6) and summary judgment)
- Vess v. Ciba‑Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir.) (two‑step anti‑SLAPP analysis; fee entitlement)
- Wasco Prods., Inc. v. Southwall Techs., Inc., 435 F.3d 989 (9th Cir.) (elements of civil conspiracy in California)
- Canatella v. Van De Kamp, 486 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.) (applying California statute of limitations to § 1983 claims)
- Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981 (9th Cir.) (test for whether an allegedly defamatory statement is protected opinion)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. Supreme Court) (municipal liability requirements under § 1983)
- City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796 (U.S. Supreme Court) (Monell claim cannot rest on respondeat superior)
- Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir.) (unauthenticated documents not considered on summary judgment)