Gregory Allen v. City of Arcata
691 F. App'x 461
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Gregory Allen sued the City of Arcata and two officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging First Amendment injuries from being excluded from a 420 celebration at Redwood Park in 2010 and deterred from returning in subsequent years.
- The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of Article III standing (no actionable injury-in-fact after 2010) and as time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations; it denied leave to amend because Allen admitted he did not attend post-2010 gatherings.
- Allen appealed the dismissal. The Ninth Circuit reviewed standing and statute-of-limitations dismissals de novo and the dismissal-with-prejudice for abuse of discretion.
- The Ninth Circuit concluded the complaint, as pled, failed to allege a separate actionable First Amendment injury after 2010 because it did not specifically plead that post-2010 actions deterred Allen from attending.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of leave to amend: amendment to allege concrete deterrence in later years (e.g., 2013–2014) might cure the standing defect and would not be futile; inconsistent pleadings are not barred.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded for opportunity to amend, and declined to address alternative dismissal grounds so they can be raised again after amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing (injury-in-fact after 2010) | Allen: exclusion in 2010 and observation of differential treatment deterred him from returning in later years | Defendants: complaint fails to allege a separate, concrete injury after 2010 | Court: No—complaint does not sufficiently allege deterrence post-2010, so no actionable injury as pled |
| Statute of limitations for 2010 injury | Allen: limitations did not accrue until 2014 when he learned alleged pretextual motives | Defendants: two-year limitations barred 2010 claim | Court: Rejected Allen’s accrual argument as unsupported; did not decide further because dismissal for lack of standing controlled |
| Leave to amend | Allen: should be allowed to amend to allege deterrence in 2013–2014 | Defendants: amendment would be futile and inconsistent with admissions | Court: Grant leave—amendment may cure standing defect and is not futile; inconsistent pleadings are permitted |
| Dismissal with prejudice / alternative grounds | Allen: dismissal too broad without chance to amend | Defendants: alternative grounds support affirmance | Court: Declined to address alternative grounds now; parties may reassert them after amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2004) (statute-of-limitations principles in § 1983 actions)
- Vaughn v. Bay Envtl. Mgmt., Inc., 567 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing standing dismissal)
- Knox v. Davis, 260 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2001) (mere continuing impact from past violations is not actionable)
- Grimes v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991) (same principle on continuing impact)
- Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (leave to amend where amendment not futile)
- Ariz. Right to Life Political Action Comm. v. Bayless, 320 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2003) (alleged modification of behavior can establish injury-in-fact)
- Cal. Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Getman, 328 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2003) (plaintiff need not speak first to show deterrence injury)
- PAE Gov’t Servs., Inc. v. MPRI, Inc., 514 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2007) (inconsistent pleadings not prohibited)