UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SACRAMENTO DIVISION
November 27, 2012
JERALD CLINTON (J.C.) EAGLESMITH,
RAMONA EAGLESMITH, EILEEN COX AND BRUCE BARNES,
JEFF RAY, AS AN INDIVIDUAL,
SUE SEGURA, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND
BOARD OF TRUSTESS OF PLUMAS COUNTY OFFICE TRIALOF EDUCATION/PLUMAS COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SUE SEGURA AND AGAINST PLAINTIFF RAMONA EAGLESMITH
Date: October 17, 2012 Time: 9:30 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 6 : May 20, 2013
On October 17, 2012, at 9:30 AM, Defendant SUE SEGURA's Motion for Summary Judgment came on for hearing in Courtroom 6, 14th Floor, Hon. John Mendez, presiding. The Court, having considered the moving papers, the papers in opposition, and the reply, the arguments of counsel, and the records and pleadings on file herein, entered its order on October 31, 2012 and ruled as follows:
The Court GRANTS summary judgment on the seventh claim for violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 and 42 U.S.C.§ 1981 in favor of defendant SUE SEGURA and against plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH, for the following reasons:
Defendant SUE SEGURA is entitled to qualified immunity for two reasons. First, that there is no underlying constitutional violation. And secondly, that even assuming there was a constitutional violation, any right that defendant SUE SEGURA may have violated was not clearly established by plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH. Qualified immunity does shield public officials sued in their individual capacity for monetary damages unless the conduct violates clearly established law that would be known to a reasonable public officer. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 121 S. Ct. 2151 (2001); Wittman v. Saenz, 108 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir. 2004).
Summary judgment for defendant SUE SEGURA is appropriate on qualified immunity alone, but with respect to the equal protection claim, there is no evidence presented by plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH that Footloose is and was the only private dance studio in Quincy, and plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH's claim falls short of the requirement that she show that she was treated differently than similarly-situated individuals.
With respect to the First Amendment claim, it is clear as a matter of law that plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH's relationships do not fall within the scope of relationships protected under the First Amendment. Bd. of Directors of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club of Duarte,481 U.S. 537, 107 S. Ct. 1940 (1987).
And then finally on the contractual relationship, the 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claim, there is no evidence of any contractual relationship between plaintiff RAMONA EAGLSMITH, plaintiff EILEEN COX or the PLUMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT or the students. Plaintiff RAMONA EAGLESMITH does not have a contract, and she is not responsible for entering into contracts on behalf of the dance studio with students. She is not employed by the PLUMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. She has been unable to present any evidence that there actually was a contractual relationship for defendant SUE SEGURA to interfere with. And for that reason, also, summary judgment is appropriate.
FURTHER, the Court sustains each of defendant SUE SEGURA's objections to plaintiff's evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
John A. Mendez
Approved as to form: DAN SIEGEL, ESQ. SIEGEL & YEE Attorneys for Plaintiffs
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.