United States District Court, E.D. California
BRETT PETERSON, D.D.S.; B.O.L.T., an unincorporated association of motorcycle riders and enthusiasts; JOHN DALKE, an individual; MARK TEMPLE, an individual, Plaintiffs,
JOSEPH A. FARROW, Commissioner California Highway Patrol; MICHAEL GOOLD, in his official capacity as Chief of Police of the City of Rancho Cordova; SCOTT R. JONES, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of County of Sacramento; ROBERT DIMICELI a.k.a. ROBERT DI MICELI, Officer of the California Highway Patrol; STEPHEN CARROZZO, Rancho Cordova police officer and Deputy Sheriff; KAMALA HARRIS, in her official capacity as California Attorney General, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
HARRIS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Brett Peterson, B.O.L.T. (short for, “Bikers of Lesser
Tolerance”), John Dalke (“Dalke”), and Mark
Temple (“Temple”) sued the following
Defendants-Sheriff of the County of Sacramento Scott R. Jones
in his official capacity, Chief of Police of the City of
Rancho Cordova Michael Goold in his official capacity, and
Rancho Cordova Police Officer Stephen Carrozzo in his
individual capacity (collectively, “Municipal
Defendants”); California Highway Patrol Officer Robert
Dimiceli in his individual capacity, and California Highway
Patrol Commissioner Joseph A. Farrow in his official capacity
(collectively, “State Defendants”), and
California Attorney General Kamala Harris in her official
capacity (“Defendant Harris”)-under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 for alleged violations of the First, Second,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Harris moves to dismiss the two claims brought by Temple
against her in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint
(SAC) (Doc. #44) under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(“Rules”) 8 and 12(b)(6), or in the alternative
to sever these claims under Rules 20(a) and 21 (Doc. #55).
For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Defendant
Harris motion to dismiss the claims brought against
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Peterson, Dalke, and Temple . . . are individuals with a
class M1 motorcycle license who, at all times relevant
herein, resided in the State of California.” SAC ¶
10. “Plaintiff B.O.L.T. is an unincorporated
association of motorcycle riders and enthusiasts[, ]”
“focusing on the unconstitutional enforcement [and
constitutionality] of helmet laws . . . .” Id.
¶¶ 11, 13.
allege that Defendants’ policies governing the issuance
of helmet non-compliance citations are unconstitutional.
also allege that because Temple received a motorcycle helmet
citation, Jones revoked Temple’s concealed carry
weapons (CCW) permit. Id. ¶ 191. As a result,
Temple asserts “a constitutional challenge to the
complex statutory scheme set forth in Cal[ifornia] Penal Code
[sections] 25450-25475, 26150-26225, 26300-26325, 32000-32030
as honorably retired California peace officers are granted
mandatory rights, privileges and immunities which are not
bestowed to Temple.” Id. ¶ 6.
April 10, 2015, Plaintiffs brought this action against
Defendants (Doc. #1) and on July 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed
their First Amended Complaint (“FAC, ” Doc. #5).
In response, Defendants filed motions to dismiss (Doc. ##13,
18) and the Court granted the motions under Rule 8, giving
Plaintiffs leave to amend (Doc. #42). On March 3, 2016,
Plaintiffs filed their SAC (Doc. #44). The SAC states nine
causes of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
including two claims specifically brought by Temple against
Defendant Harris: the eighth cause of action for injunctive
and declaratory relief for Fourteenth Amendment Equal
Protection violations and the ninth cause of action for
injunctive and declaratory relief for Fourteenth Amendment
Privileges or Immunities clause violations. The Court now
addresses the merits of Defendant Harris’ motion to
dismiss these two claims (Doc. #55).
Failure to Comply with Rule 8
Harris contends that Plaintiffs’ SAC should be
dismissed for failure to abide by Rule 8(d)(1)’s
requirement that “[e]ach allegation must be simple,
concise, and direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(d)(1). The SAC
sets forth which claims are being brought against which
defendants in accordance with Rule 8 and while the eighth and
ninth causes of action are, in part, somewhat of a mash of
claims, the Court finds that they minimally satisfy the Rule
8 requirements. Defendant Harris’ motion to dismiss
these two claims under Rule 8 is therefore denied.
Equal Protection Claims
As Applied Challenge
brings “as-applied” and “on-the-face
challenge[s]” to various California statutes regulating
the sale and possession of firearms. SAC ¶ 221.
Defendant Harris contends that Temple has not properly
alleged as applied challenges. Mot. 5:22-23. “Temple
alleges that the challenged Penal Code provisions include
exemptions ‘for retired peace offers’ and
effectively ‘create [two] classes of
citizens’-‘honorably retired peace
officers’ and ‘all others.’”
Id. at 6:4-6 (alteration in original) (quoting SAC
¶¶ 215, 227, 229). Temple “does not allege
that any of the laws are neutral, but ...