Scocca v. Smith, 912 F. Supp. 2d 875

Background

Plaintiffs sue Santa Clara County and Sheriff Smith (official and individual capacities) alleging equal protection violation regarding CA Penal Code § 26150 CCW licensing.
Plaintiffs’ entities include Scocca, Madison Society, Inc. (MS), and Calguns Foundation, Inc. (CGF); MS/CGF seek only injunctive and declaratory relief, Scocca seeks damages and injunctive/declaratory relief.
Sheriff Smith allegedly issued over 70 CCW licenses; Scocca applied in 2008–2010 and was denied; dispute centers on good moral character and good cause requirements.
State law controls CCW licensing; California statutes set state-overseen framework (DOJ forms, fingerprints, reporting) with a statewide license effect, not purely county.
Court considers whether Sheriff Smith, in CCW licensing, acts as a state official or county official; determines County is not a proper defendant for liability.
Court grants in part and defers in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing County claims with prejudice and some official-capacity damages, while allowing limited prospective relief and potential amendment on a class-of-one claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether County can be sued for CCW licensing decisions.	Scocca argues sheriff acts as county official in licensing.	County asserts sheriff acts as state official.	County dismissed with prejudice.
Whether damages against Sheriff Smith in official capacity are barred by Eleventh Amendment.	Damages should be recoverable against Smith.	Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to state for monetary damages.	Damages claim dismissed with prejudice.
Whether the class-of-one equal protection claim against Sheriff Smith is viable.	Scocca was intentionally singled out for worse treatment.	Discretionary CCW decisions permit differential treatment; Engquist controls.	Class-of-one claim dismissed without prejudice for lack of plausible intentional discrimination; amendment may be allowed.
Whether qualified immunity shields Sheriff Smith from the individual-capacity claims relating to the fundamental-right-based equal protection theory.	Rights under Second Amendment are clearly established.	Not clearly established at the time that CCW outside home was protected.	Sheriff Smith would have qualified immunity for the individual-capacity fundamental-right claim; proceeding limited to that defense.

Key Cases Cited

McMillian v. Monroe County, 520 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1997) (sheriff representation varies by function; state over county control depends on context)
Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2001) (whether sheriff represents state or county depends on function and applicable state law)
Venegas v. County of Los Angeles, 32 Cal.4th 820 (Cal. 2004) (California law context for sheriff as state or countyOfficial actor distinctions)
Streit v. County of Los Angeles, 236 F.3d 552 (9th Cir.2001) (limits of county control over jail administration; informs control analysis)
Olech v. Willowbrook, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (establishes intentional differential treatment requirement for class-of-one)
Towery v. Brewer, 672 F.3d 650 (9th Cir.2012) (Engquist not absolute bar; pattern of discriminatory treatment evidence suffices)
United States v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (Second Amendment scope; home defense focus at time of decision)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (establishes Second Amendment landmark; emphasizes self-defense in home)
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (S. Ct. 2010) (extends Second Amendment to states via incorporation)
Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2008) (class-of-one claims in discretionary public action context; limited applicability)
Gerhart v. Lake County, 637 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir.2011) (requires plausible inference of intentional differential treatment for class-of-one)
North Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica, 526 F.3d 478 (9th Cir.2008) (clarifies intent element in class-of-one analysis)