Jacquelynn Nickler v. County of Clark, 20-16334

Background

Jacquelynn Nickler sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort law after county officials revoked her courthouse badge privileges; she sought injunctive relief and damages.
The district court dismissed her complaint and denied leave to file a First Amended Complaint; Nickler appealed.
Before dismissal, Nickler’s badge privileges were restored, and the district court concluded her injunctive claim was moot.
Nickler sought to amend to add money damages for her Fourth Amendment claim; the district court held the appellate mandate and qualified-immunity ruling foreclosed that relief.
The district court found proposed First Amendment and defamation allegations conclusory or factually deficient (she judicially admitted her speech concerned a workplace grievance), and held state tort claims were time-barred and would not relate back.
The court denied leave to amend based on undue delay, futility, judicial admissions, and bad faith, and dismissed with prejudice; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether injunctive relief claim is moot after badge restoration	Nickler argued relief still warranted or recurrence likely	County argued restoration eliminates live controversy	Moot: badge restoration removed present harm; injunction not warranted
Whether voluntary-cessation exception to mootness applies	Nickler argued restoration might be litigation-driven and conduct could recur	County argued restoration was for non-litigation reasons and recurrence is unlikely	No exception: cessation not litigation-motivated; recurrence not reasonably expected
Whether Nickler may amend to seek money damages on Fourth Amendment claim despite prior mandate	Nickler sought to replead monetary relief	County relied on mandate doctrine and prior qualified-immunity ruling	Denied: mandate doctrine bars relitigation; qualified immunity previously affirmed except for injunctive relief
Whether amendment to add First Amendment or defamation claims would be futile	Nickler contended she could plausibly allege defamatory statements and protected speech	County argued allegations lacked specifics and speech was not public concern; judicial admissions doom claims	Denied: futility — insufficient factual detail for defamation; speech was a private workplace grievance, not public concern
Whether state tort claims should be allowed (timeliness and relation back)	Nickler tried to revive state tort claims	County argued claims were time-barred and could not relate back	Denied: state claims barred by statute of limitations and do not relate back; amendment futile
Whether leave to amend should be granted under Foman factors	Nickler sought leave to amend	County emphasized delay, futility, and prior judicial admissions	Denied: Foman factors (undue delay, futility, judicial admissions, bad faith) support dismissal with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Am. Rivers v. Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 126 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 1997) (mootness doctrine and injunction standards)
Public Utils. Comm’n of State of Cal. v. F.E.R.C., 100 F.3d 1451 (9th Cir. 1996) (voluntary cessation doctrine analysis)
Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., Inc., 861 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2017) (past exposure to illegal conduct does not alone preserve a live controversy)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (standard for reasonable expectation of recurrence in mootness context)
United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (rule of mandate requires lower courts to follow appellate mandates)
Weeks v. Bayer, 246 F.3d 1231 (9th Cir. 2001) (speech on private workplace grievances not protected as public concern)
Martell v. Trilogy Ltd., 872 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1989) (relation-back doctrine limits)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (factors for denying leave to amend such as undue delay, futility)