Young v. Becerra

Background

Huguette Nicole Young, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Xavier Becerra concerning a June 2020 announcement by Governor Newsom stating that Californians were required to wear face coverings in public spaces. Young’s second amended complaint did not identify a specific legal claim, but alleged that the face-covering guideline violated what she understood to be a First Amendment right to smile at others and to communicate audibly, clearly, and expressively. She sought injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, and costs.

The court noted that Young had previously amended her complaint and that the case had involved several procedural difficulties. The court had required her to obtain prior approval before filing motions and had issued an order requiring her to explain why the case should not be dismissed after she failed to respond to a motion to dismiss and was otherwise unreachable. Young later responded, stating that she was homeless and living in her car, and the court withdrew that order.

Defendant’s Motion and the Court’s Ruling

The defendant asked the court to dismiss the second amended complaint for lack of standing and on Eleventh Amendment grounds. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury that the court can address. The court dismissed the case without prejudice and ordered it closed. It also denied Young’s pending motions as moot and denied the defendant’s request for judicial notice as moot. Because the case was closed, the court did not amend the caption to reflect a change in the California Attorney General’s name.

First Amendment Claim

The court concluded that Young had not stated a plausible First Amendment claim. It explained that the First Amendment protects the content of speech, not generally the mechanics of speaking clearly or smiling. The court also found that the challenged requirement did not appear to restrict speech based on its content, viewpoint, or the speaker’s identity. Relying on Supreme Court guidance concerning state authority to protect public health during a pandemic, the court emphasized that state officials receive especially broad latitude in areas involving medical and scientific uncertainty.

Standing and Injunctive Relief

The court separately held that Young had not alleged facts showing a concrete and particularized injury, or an injury that was actual or imminent. Her complaint stated that she was a citizen and resident of Oregon, and it provided almost no facts showing that she had been subjected to a California mask requirement as a nonresident. Although she alleged that she had been asked to wear a mask at a Walmart in Northern California, she did not provide details about when or where that occurred or what happened.

The court also found no plausible imminent threat of irreparable harm, which was relevant both to standing and to her request for an injunction. The complaint said that Young had stopped working as a truck driver and was willing to relocate anywhere offering an opportunity as long as there was no mask mandate, which suggested that she did not plan to return to California. A reference to a possible Christmas visit to family in California did not establish concrete plans or any expected mask-related problem. The court stated that past injury alone could not support an injunction.

Further Amendment and Disposition

The court declined to allow another amendment. It stated that Young had already had prior opportunities to amend and appeared to have raised essentially the same First Amendment claim in several federal districts without success. The court concluded that further amendment would serve no useful purpose and was unlikely to be effective based on the allegations presented.

The case was dismissed without prejudice and ordered closed. The court further ordered that no party could make additional filings without the court’s prior approval.