Moulton v. Gjerde
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:20-cv-02374
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Judge Chesney granted the County’s motion in Moulton v. Gjerde, dismissing five federal claims while leaving the state-law claim pending.
The ruling affected Brandy Moulton’s federal claims against the County of Mendocino: the First through Fifth Causes of Action were dismissed without further leave to amend. The County’s remaining response was limited to the Sixth Cause of Action, which remained pending. The order did not resolve Moulton’s claims against Dan Gjerde in his individual capacity.
What happened
In Moulton v. Gjerde, Brandy Moulton alleged that Dan Gjerde blocked her from interacting on his Facebook page because she posted comments criticizing him. She sued Gjerde individually and in his official capacity, which the court treated as a claim against the County of Mendocino.
The County asked the court to dismiss the federal claims against it. The court ruled that Moulton’s third attempt to plead that the County was responsible for a constitutional violation still did not fix the problems identified in earlier orders. It granted the motion and dismissed the First through Fifth Causes of Action against the County without further leave to amend. The court left the Sixth Cause of Action, a state-law claim, pending and ordered the County to answer it by December 31, 2020.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney vacated the scheduled hearing and issued the order on December 11, 2020. The opinion notes that Gjerde had not been served and had not appeared, but this order addressed the County’s motion.
The detailed version
- Moulton v. Gjerde · No. 3:20-cv-02374
- Maxine Chesney
- Dec. 11, 2020
Background
Brandy Moulton sued Dan Gjerde in two capacities: individually and in his official capacity as an elected Supervisor of the County of Mendocino. The court treated the official-capacity claim as a claim against the County of Mendocino. The opinion states that Moulton had not filed proof of service on Gjerde and that Gjerde had not appeared; the motion addressed in this order was filed by the County.
Moulton alleged that Gjerde operated a Facebook page that she described as a public forum. She alleged that, in February 2020, he blocked her from interacting with him or other constituents there in retaliation for comments critical of him. Her First through Fifth Causes of Action asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. Her Sixth Cause of Action asserted a state-law claim under the California Constitution concerning speech and petition rights.
Court’s analysis
The County moved to dismiss the federal claims against it. The court explained that it had previously dismissed Moulton’s § 1983 claims against the County because she had not pleaded enough facts to establish municipal liability. Municipal liability is the rule that a government entity may be sued under § 1983 when an unconstitutional act implements or carries out the entity’s policy or custom.
The court had previously given Moulton opportunities to amend. After reviewing the Second Amended Complaint, including new allegations about municipal liability, the court concluded that those allegations did not correct the deficiencies identified in the earlier orders. The court relied on the reasons stated in those orders and on the County’s arguments.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the County’s motion to dismiss. It DISMISSED the First through Fifth Causes of Action, to the extent asserted against the County, without further leave to amend. The Sixth Cause of Action remained pending against the County, and the court DIRECTED the County to file an answer to that claim by December 31, 2020. The court also VACATED the hearing scheduled for December 18, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.