2:24-cv-02181
E.D. Cal.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Kelley Coelho, proceeding pro se, sued California State Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil and her Chief of Staff Vanessa Bravo, alleging constitutional rights violations.
- The alleged incident occurred when Coelho was removed from a press conference held by the senator at a police department, reportedly at the senator's request due to Coelho's status as a disabled veteran.
- Coelho claimed violations of her First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights based on the removal and denial of access as a member of the press.
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity and qualified immunity.
- Plaintiff also moved for electronic filing privileges, ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) court assistance, and a protective order—all of which were denied.
- The court recommended dismissal of the complaint with leave to amend, finding no viable constitutional claim had been stated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment Immunity | Sought damages against state officials for constitutional violations | Official capacity claims barred by sovereign immunity | Official capacity claims barred |
| Qualified Immunity & Constitutional Claims | Constitutional rights were violated by exclusion and removal | Actions did not violate clearly established rights | Complaint failed to state a claim; qualified immunity not reached |
| First Amendment Violation | Rights to speech/assembly violated by removal | Insufficient facts; no specific violation pled | No viable First Amendment claim |
| Fourth Amendment Seizure | Removal constituted unlawful seizure | No plausible allegations showing unlawful seizure | No viable Fourth Amendment claim |
| Ninth Amendment Violation | Fundamental rights unjustly infringed | Ninth Amendment does not secure independent rights | Ninth Amendment does not support a claim |
| Equal Protection (Fourteenth Amendment) | Disparate treatment as a disabled veteran | No protected class/nexus to discrimination | No viable equal protection claim |
| ADA and E-Filing Assistance Motions | Needed electronic/file assistance due to disability | Insufficient basis under rules; plaintiff can file by other means | Motions denied |
| Protective Order Motion | Sought discovery protections | Not properly noticed; failed to certify attempt to confer | Motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (Eleventh Amendment bars federal suits for damages against states or state officials in official capacity)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (Official capacity suits against state officers are treated as suits against the state)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (Qualified immunity protects officials unless their conduct violates clearly established rights)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (Qualified immunity standard for government officials)
- Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878 (Equal Protection Clause requires equal treatment of similarly situated persons)
- San Diego Cnty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (Ninth Amendment does not support independent constitutional claims)