Skidmore v. The Regents of the University of California

Background

Allison Skidmore, described in the opinion as an animal-rights activist and Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz, published a Facebook post on her personal page concerning the treatment of bears in China. The post was considered inflammatory and highly offensive by unintended recipients. Skidmore sued the Regents of the University of California and Gregory Gilbert, Madeleine Fairbairn, Flora Lu, and S. Ravi Rajan. The opinion identifies Gilbert as the chair of the University’s Environmental Studies Department and the others as department faculty members.

Skidmore alleged violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and asserted a California false-light privacy claim. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages. The defendants moved to dismiss all claims and filed a special motion to strike the false-light claim under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides a procedure for challenging claims based on constitutionally protected speech or petitioning activity.

Claims Against the Regents

The court held that the Regents are protected from suit by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. It relied on the conclusion that the Regents are an arm of the state and therefore are not a person subject to suit under § 1983. The court also held that this protection extends to the state-law claims. Because the defects could not be cured by amendment, the claims against the Regents were dismissed with prejudice.

Constitutional Claims Against the Individual Defendants

Skidmore conceded that she had sued the individual defendants in their official capacities. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars damages claims against state officials in their official capacities. Although officials may be sued in that capacity for prospective injunctive relief, the court found that Skidmore had not alleged a present or future injury that such relief could remedy. The court noted that the last alleged action occurred on April 10, 2020, when department faculty published a statement condemning her comments but not naming her, and that counsel represented she was on track to receive her Ph.D. in June 2021.

Because amendment could potentially cure the deficiencies, the court dismissed all claims against the individual defendants without prejudice. The court instructed that any amended complaint would need to address the academic-freedom doctrine, which protects the First Amendment rights of university professors. It also stated that a Fourteenth Amendment liberty-interest claim requires facts showing more than reputational harm alone.

False-Light Claim and Anti-SLAPP Motion

The defendants challenged the false-light claim under both the pleading rule for failure to state a claim and California’s anti-SLAPP statute. The court found that the defendants made the required initial showing that the claim was based on protected activity: three statements to members of the campus community condemning Skidmore’s comments. The court stated that the issue was one of public interest.

At the second stage of the anti-SLAPP analysis, the court found that Skidmore had not shown that the false-light claim was legally sufficient and factually supported. False light requires publicity placing a person before the public in a highly offensive false light, with knowledge or reckless disregard of the falsity. The court held that the alleged statements were opinions that could not be proven false and that Skidmore had not alleged facts showing provably false statements. It therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as to the false-light claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice.

The court deferred a final ruling on the anti-SLAPP motion and granted Skidmore leave to amend the false-light claim. The amended complaint was due by April 19, 2021.

Disposition

The motion to dismiss was granted. All claims against the Regents were dismissed with prejudice. All claims against the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice. The court deferred ruling on the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion.