Opinion
No. C 04-02265 JW.
November 17, 2004
CORRECTED ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit arises out of an employment dispute between Plaintiff Thomas Spielbauer ("Spielbauer") and Defendant Santa Clara County. Defendants here move, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Rule 12(b)(6)), to dismiss Spielbauer's First Amended Complaint. On November 8, 2004, this Court held a hearing regarding Defendants' motion. Having considered the arguments advanced by the parties at said hearing and in their briefs, this Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss.
II. BACKGROUND
Spielbauer is an attorney licensed to practice law in California. In March 1981, Santa Clara County hired Spielbauer as a deputy public defender. Spielbauer served in that position continuously for more than twenty-two years.
Spielbauer is also a political activist. (Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion Pursuant to FRCP 12, hereinafter Plaintiff's Opposition, at 1:19-20.) He has at least "twice stood for election to the Superior Court, opposing political insiders, and has roundly criticized the County of Santa Clara and various administrators on a number of issues." (Plaintiff's Opposition at 1:20-21.) In 1998, Spielbauer and two other deputy public defenders "circulated and filed an initiative petition" to "place onto the ballot . . . an initiative to amend the County charter to render the appointed position of public defender . . . [into] a popularly elected position within the County of Santa Clara." (First Amended Complaint, hereinafter FAC, at 3:10-13.) Thereafter, Speilbauer alleges, Defendant Jose Villarreal, Santa Clara County's appointed public defender, "took vindictive actions by making unfavorable assignments of the public defenders involved. . . ." (FAC at ¶ 12.)
Undaunted, Plaintiff "made further political criticism of Jose Villarreal, including allegations of discriminatory treatment of a disabled public defender, criticism of Mr. Villarreal for previously not maintaining residence in the County of Santa Clara, and even pressed previous litigation against Mr. Vilarreal for violation of civil rights." (FAC at ¶ 14.) And, "[i]n the years 1998 through 2004, plaintiff openly criticized Mr. Villarreal as misusing his position to conduct political activities while being compensated as a public defender through use and abuse of his office as a public defender." (FAC at ¶ 14.)
In January 2003, a deputy district attorney opposing Spielbauer in a matter accused Spielbauer of failing to disclose the availability of a witness. Although Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Teilh, the presiding judge in the matter, stated and found that Spielbauer had not misled him, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office commenced a prosecution against Spielbauer for obstructing justice. (FAC at ¶ 15.)
In April 2003, Defendant Jose Guzman, an administrator of Santa Clara County's Public Defender's Office, attempted to interview Spielbauer regarding the prosecution against him. Spielbauer refused to speak and invoked his right against self-incrimination. (FAC at ¶ 16.) Neither Guzman nor any one else provided Spielbauer with reasonable assurances that his statements would be provided use immunity — or otherwise not used in the prosecution against him. (FAC at ¶ 16.)
On May 7, 2003, an investigator for the Public Defender's Office issued a report concluding that Spielbauer was insubordinate for refusing to speak with Guzman and that Spielbauer violated California law by deceit of the court. (FAC at ¶ 17.)
On June 10, 2003, the Public Defender's Office issued a notice of termination to Spielbauer. An administrative review was conducted, and a notice of final termination was issued effective July 3, 2003. (FAC at ¶ 18.)
Spielbauer appealed the notice of final termination to Defendant Santa Clara County Personnel Board ("Personnel Board"). In December 2003 and January 2004, Personnel Board conducted hearings regarding Spielbauer's termination. (FAC at ¶ 19.) On April 2, 2004, the Personnel Board upheld Spielbauer's termination. (FAC at ¶ 19.)
Spielbauer's First Amended Complaint alleges two causes of action. First, Spielbauer alleges, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a violation of his civil rights. In particular, Spielbauer alleges that Defendants' actions were taken in retaliation for Spielbauer's exercise of his First and Fifth Amendment freedoms. (FAC at ¶ 23.)
Second, Spielbauer alleges, via supplemental jurisdiction, a state-law administrative mandamus claim. In particular, Spielbauer seeks judicial review of the Personnel Board's administrative findings. "Pursuant to California law under C.C.P. [sic] § 1094.5 [sic] and C.C.P. [sic] § 1086 [sic] and related sections, plaintiff is entitled to judicial review of the administrative findings of the Santa Clara County Personnel Board." (FAC at ¶ 27.)
Spielbauer seeks, inter alia, "damages in excess of $100,000[;] . . . consequential damages[;] . . . injunctive relief . . . together with all back pay, benefits, and entitlements[; and] costs, including reasonable attorneys fees."
III. STANDARD
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all allegations of material fact and must construe said allegations in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Western Reserve Oil Gas Co. v. New, 765 F.2d 1428, 1430 (9th Cir. 1985). Any existing ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the pleading. Walling v. Beverly Enterprises, 476 F.2d 393, 396 (9th Cir. 1973).
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), sets forth the strict standard for granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss must not be granted "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id. at 45-46. As the Ninth Circuit has observed, "The [Rule 12(b)(6)] motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted." Gilligan v. Jamco Develop. Corp., 108 F.3d 246, 249 (9th Cir. 1997).
IV. DISCUSSION
Defendants move to dismiss Spielbauer's First Cause of Action (Violation of Civil Rights Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983) on the ground that Spielbauer failed to exhaust his judicial remedies. (Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, hereinafter Defendants' Motion, at 5:22-23.) This Court agrees with Defendants.
The Ninth Circuit has observed that:
California has made it quite clear that a discharged civil servant who elects an administrative forum for review of his or her termination must succeed in overturning that administrative decision through the judicial mandamus review procedure prior to filing a suit for damages on claims arising out of the termination.Miller v. County of Santa Cruz, 39 F.3d 1030, 1038 (9th Cir. 1994) (second emphasis added); see also Williams v. Housing Authority of City of Los Angeles, 121 Cal. App. 4th 708, 724-25 (2004) ("When a public or private employee pursues an internal administrative remedy, the employee must timely seek judicial review from an adverse administrative decision by filing an administrative mandamus action before filing a civil action. This is known as the exhaustion of judicial remedies.") (emphasis added) (citing Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal. 4th 61, 76 (2000) and Westlake Community Hospital v. Superior Court, 17 Cal. 3d 465, 482-485 (1976)).
Spielbauer is a public employee who elected to appeal his dismissal to an administrative forum — the Personnel Board. Moreover, Spielbauer's First Cause of Action seeks damages on claims arising out of his termination. In order to bring his First Cause of Action, Spielbauer must first exhaust his judicial remedies. He has not. Thus, Speilbauer's First Cause of Action fails to state a claim.
Spielbauer's retort is circular. Spielbauer claims that he has appealed the Personnel Board's administrative decision. Said appeal is the Second Cause of Action of this lawsuit. In Spielbauer's words: "Contrary to the assertions by defendant in the motion, plaintiff has appealed the administrative decision pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court, i.e. the second cause of action to the first amended complaint." (Plaintiff's Opposition at 3:9-11.) Spielbauer's retort, however, begs the question: If Spielbauer's First Cause of Action for damages cannot be brought until the Personnel Board's decision is judicially overturned, then on what basis would Speilbauer have this Court exercise "supplemental" jurisdiction over his Second Cause of Action? Supplemental jurisdiction requires that this Court first have original jurisdiction over some other related claim. Moreover, even if this Court had original jurisdiction over a related claim, this Court would be loath to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Spielbauer's Second Cause of Action. As Judge Whyte has noted:
Mandamus proceedings . . . are actions that are uniquely in the interest and domain of state courts. It would be entirely inappropriate for a federal court, through exercise of its supplemental jurisdiction, to impose itself upon such proceedings. Considerations of federalism and comity . . . loom large in the case of state mandamus proceedings.Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates v. City of Morgan Hill, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26978 at *27 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2002) (citing Clemes v. Del Norte County Unified School District, 843 F. Supp. 583, 596 (N.D. Cal. 1994)).
In addition, this Court notes, as Judge Beezer noted in Miller, 39 F.3d at 1038 n. 10, that "state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over § 1983 claims; [there is] no reason to suspect that the courts of California could not, if given the opportunity, correct an [administrative agency's] erroneous conclusion on a constitutional issue."
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss. This Order is issued without prejudice to Spielbauer, should he elect to bring another cause of action after he has exhausted his judicial remedies.