Shirazi v. Oweis

Background

Sabrina Belle Shirazi brought a civil-rights damages action based on events at a February 10, 2020 labor strike and picket near the entrance to the University of California Santa Cruz. The opinion describes Shirazi as a Ph.D. candidate and a university graduate student research and teaching assistant. She alleged that, during a peaceful protest, officers from the University of California Santa Cruz Police Department and officers responding as mutual aid charged into the crowd without warning. She alleged that officers, including UCPD Officer Loren Bates and California Highway Patrol Officer Silva, surrounded her, repeatedly struck her with clubs, shoved her, and caused a concussion and other injuries. She also alleged that officers failed to intervene and did not summon medical care.

The First Amended Complaint asserted eight claims: a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force; a § 1983 claim involving speech, expression, and association; a § 1983 conspiracy claim; a § 1983 failure-to-intervene claim; assault and battery against the UCPD defendants; a claim under California Civil Code § 51.7; a claim under California Civil Code § 52.1; and negligence against the UCPD defendants. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally sufficient claim. Shirazi also moved for permission to file a Second Amended Complaint and to substitute parties for Does 3 and 4.

Rulings on Silva’s Motion

The court granted Silva’s motion to dismiss as to the third claim for conspiracy and the fourth claim for failure to intervene. Both claims were dismissed with leave to amend. The court denied Silva’s motion in all other respects, including as to the second claim involving First Amendment rights. The court found that Shirazi’s allegations that the protest was peaceful, that officers charged without warning, and that officers repeatedly struck her even though she was not blocking or threatening them were enough at the pleading stage to support an inference that Bates’s and Silva’s actions were substantially motivated by her protected protest activity.

Rulings on Oweis, Flippo, and Bates’s Motion

The court granted this motion in part and denied it in all other respects.

* First claim—excessive force: Dismissed with leave to amend as to Oweis and Flippo. The court found that the complaint did not allege sufficient facts connecting those supervisory defendants to the alleged force, including facts showing that they directed, knew about, or could have stopped the conduct, or that they were responsible for deficient training. * Second claim—speech, expression, and association: Dismissed with leave to amend as to Oweis and Flippo. The claim remained viable against Bates and Silva based on the court’s analysis of the allegations supporting an inference of retaliation. * Third claim—conspiracy: Dismissed with leave to amend as to Oweis, Flippo, and Bates. The court found the allegations that the defendants planned for the event, were present, and used force did not adequately allege an agreement or shared unlawful objective. * Fourth claim—failure to intervene: Dismissed with leave to amend as to Oweis and Flippo. The allegations that defendants stood by in plain view were conclusory and did not provide facts about each defendant’s realistic opportunity to intervene. * Fifth claim—assault and battery: Dismissed without leave to amend as to Oweis and Flippo because the complaint did not allege their personal involvement. * Sixth claim—California Civil Code § 51.7: Dismissed with leave to amend as to Oweis and Flippo. The court denied dismissal as to Bates, finding the allegation that bias related to Shirazi’s perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, labor-dispute position, or political affiliation substantially motivated the misconduct sufficient at the pleading stage. * Seventh claim—California Civil Code § 52.1: Dismissed with leave to amend as to Oweis and Flippo. The court denied dismissal as to Bates, finding that specific intent could reasonably be inferred from the allegation that Bates repeatedly clubbed Shirazi. * Eighth claim—negligence: Dismissed with leave to amend as to Oweis and Flippo. The court denied dismissal as to Bates, concluding that the alleged Fourth Amendment violation could establish breach of a duty of care under California law.

Amendment and Disposition

The court declined to take judicial notice of a California mutual-aid agreement because Shirazi had not shown that it was relevant to the alleged constitutional violations. The court granted Shirazi’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and to substitute parties for Does 3 and 4. Defendants had conditionally stated that they did not oppose that motion, provided the court first ruled on the dismissal motions. Shirazi was permitted to file the Second Amended Complaint no later than March 7, 2022.

Judge Edward J. Davila signed the order. The opinion does not state that the case as a whole was dismissed.