Samaan v. Jones, 2:16-cv-00789

Plaintiff Nabil Samaan, a Sacramento County resident and attorney, applied for and received a CCW license in February 2016 after DOJ/FBI clearance and completing training.
Sheriff Scott Jones revoked the CCW about a month later (March 23, 2016); Samaan surrendered the license and sought explanation to appeal, then sued in April 2016.
Samaan alleges the revocation was retaliation for prior lawsuits he filed against Sacramento County and also claims race-based discrimination (Fourteenth Amendment) and First Amendment retaliation.
Defendants contend the revocation resulted from Samaan’s March 7, 2016 email stating his intent to carry in the American River Parkway despite a county code banning firearms there; that email was routed to the Sheriff’s three-person review panel and the panel recommended revocation, which Jones approved.
The court found the sheriff had statutory discretion to revoke a CCW under California law, so the dispute is whether the exercise of that discretion violated federal constitutional rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
First Amendment retaliation — was revocation motivated by Samaan’s prior lawsuits?	Revocation was retaliation for Samaan’s 2014 (and other) suits against the county; that litigation was a substantial motivating factor.	Revocation was prompted by Samaan’s March 2016 email declaring intent to carry in the Parkway contrary to county code; panel recommendation and Jones’ approval were based on that conduct.	Denied summary judgment — genuine dispute of material fact exists about the motivating reason, so issue must be decided by a factfinder.
Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection — class-of-one or race discrimination)	Revocation was discriminatory and based on race and/or differential treatment compared to similarly situated individuals.	No evidence of unequal treatment or decision based on race; decision tied to Samaan’s email and county code issue.	Denied summary judgment — plaintiff produced no evidence of similarly situated comparators or racial motive; genuine factual dispute about basis for revocation prevents summary judgment for plaintiff.

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine-dispute inquiry)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant’s initial burden at summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show genuine issue permitting trial)
O’Brien v. Welty, 818 F.3d 920 (9th Cir.) (First Amendment retaliation framework)
Pinard v. Clatskanie Sch. Dist. 6J, 467 F.3d 755 (9th Cir.) (burden-shifting in retaliation cases)
Marez v. Bassett, 595 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir.) (competing evidence on motive precludes summary judgment on retaliation)
CBS, Inc. v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646 (Cal.) (sheriff’s broad discretion in CCW licensing)
Nichols v. County of Santa Clara, 223 Cal. App. 3d 1236 (Cal. Ct. App.) (sheriff’s discretion includes revocation of CCW licenses)