Mattingly v. California Department of Parks and Recreation

Background

Michael Joseph Mattingly, who represented himself, sued the California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR) and nine CDPR officers under federal and state law. His claims arose from encounters at Twin Lakes State Beach and his arrest on July 31, 2021. The claims included unlawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment, false imprisonment, First Amendment retaliation, a claim under Article X, section 4 of the California Constitution concerning access to navigable waters, and a claim titled “California Government Claim.”

CDPR posted park hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The undisputed evidence showed that Mattingly remained on the beach after 10:00 p.m. on July 31, 2021. Sergeant Peter Estes told the group that the beach was closed and asked whether they would leave. Mattingly continued trying to give Estes papers titled “LAWFUL NOTIFICATION.” The parties disputed important details about the encounter, including whether Mattingly complied with directions to step back, whether Estes moved into Mattingly or Mattingly moved into Estes’s path, and whether Mattingly’s efforts to hand over the papers interfered with the officers’ efforts to clear the beach.

Rulings

CDPR and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court granted CDPR’s motion for summary judgment based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed all remaining claims against CDPR. The court treated CDPR as a state agency that could not be sued in federal court on the claims at issue.

Fourth Amendment unlawful-arrest claim. The court granted defendants’ motion on this claim. It held that probable cause supported Mattingly’s arrest for violating California Code of Regulations section 4326 because he was on the beach after the posted closing time, knew the posted hours, and did not leave after officers addressed the group. The court also held that the officers would be protected by qualified immunity even if probable cause had been lacking, because the law did not clearly establish that this arrest was unlawful under the specific circumstances.

The court separately held that factual disputes prevented summary judgment based on probable cause to arrest Mattingly for violating California Penal Code section 148(a), which concerns resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer. Those disputes concerned the events immediately before the handcuffing and the timing of the arrest. But the court concluded that the section 4326 ruling was sufficient to resolve the unlawful-arrest claim for defendants.

False-imprisonment claim. The court construed Mattingly’s claim, despite its reference to the Fifth Amendment, as a California state-law false-imprisonment claim. The court granted defendants’ motion to the extent the claim was based on an allegedly unlawful arrest, because the arrest for violating section 4326 was made within the officers’ authority and was not without lawful privilege.

The court did not resolve other allegations that Mattingly had been falsely imprisoned or denied due process after his arrest, including allegations concerning his detention at the county jail and the signing of a promise to appear. Those matters were not presented in defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court stated that it would seek the parties’ views about further briefing or proceedings on those matters.

First Amendment retaliation. The court assumed without deciding that Mattingly’s activities were protected by the First Amendment. It rejected the retaliation theory based on his remaining on the beach after hours because he had not shown that similarly situated people who were not protesting the park hours were not arrested. The court granted defendants’ motion on that portion of the claim.

The court denied defendants’ motion to the extent the retaliation claim was based on Mattingly’s attempt to serve papers on Estes. The court found a material factual dispute about whether Mattingly was arrested because he was trying to serve the papers. The court noted evidence that officers generally did not arrest people for violating section 4326 alone, that Mattingly had previously remained on the beach after hours without being arrested or cited, and that a reasonable jury could find that he was arrested because he was the only person attempting to hand papers to Estes.

California Constitution, Article X, section 4. The court granted defendants’ motion on this claim, including the claim for damages. Mattingly argued that enforcing the park-hours rule violated his right of access to navigable waters because the sign had allegedly been posted without a coastal development permit. The court held that he had not shown that such a permit was required, identified no legislation making the regulation unlawful, and cited no decision invalidating the regulation or finding that it violated Article X, section 4.

“California Government Claim.” The court granted defendants’ motion on Mattingly’s separate claim titled “California Government Claim.” It held that the California Government Claims Act required a timely claim before seeking money damages from a public entity or employee, and that Mattingly did not submit his claim until nearly two years after his July 31, 2021 arrest, rather than within the required six months. The court also stated that the Government Claims Act is not itself a separate basis for relief.

Disposition

The motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. It was granted as to CDPR’s Eleventh Amendment defense; the Fourth Amendment unlawful-arrest claim; the false-imprisonment claim to the extent based on false arrest; the Article X, section 4 claim, including damages; and the “California Government Claim.” It was denied as to the First Amendment retaliation claim only insofar as it concerned attempting to serve papers on Estes. The motion was granted as to the other First Amendment retaliation theories. Other portions of the false-imprisonment claim were not addressed by the motion, and the court set a case-management conference to discuss further proceedings.