Navarrette v. Options Recovery Services

Background

According to the complaint, Tomas Navarrette was released from Santa Rita Jail on or about February 4, 2022, after two years of incarceration, following a mental-health diversion motion granted by the Alameda County Superior Court. He was then placed with Options Recovery Services, which provided outpatient services and housing.

Options required residents to follow a 7:00 p.m. curfew. Navarrette, a member of the Moorish Science Temple of America, asked for a religious exemption so he could attend Friday-night services. Options denied the request and continued to prevent him from attending those services while he lived there. Navarrette later complained about the house manager, arranged an inspection with the City of Oakland concerning what he described as unsafe conditions, and moved out of the Options housing.

Navarrette continued using Options’ outpatient services. After receiving an offer of full-time employment, he asked to change his treatment schedule from five mornings each week to three evenings each week. Options denied that request. After Navarrette sent an email to Options’ board complaining about the house manager, an Options employee discharged him from the outpatient services, stating that he was in a heightened mental-health state and that Options was not the proper venue for him.

Navarrette asserted six claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. Two claims alleged violations of federal rights involving religious freedom and retaliation for speech; four alleged violations of rights created by state law.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants—Options, George K.L. Smith, Brianna Herron, and Pamela Thomas—asked the court to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint lacks a legally recognized claim or does not allege enough facts to support one. They argued that the complaint did not adequately allege that any defendant acted under color of state law.

To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege both the deprivation of a right secured by federal law and action under color of state law. The second requirement generally means that the defendant acted with authority or involvement fairly attributable to the government. The court considered the public-function test and the government-nexus test. Navarrette stated that he was not relying on the joint-action or state-compulsion tests.

Court’s Analysis

Under the public-function test, a private party acts under color of state law when performing a power traditionally and exclusively reserved to the state. The court held that providing substance-abuse treatment and sober-living residential services was not such an exclusively governmental function. The court also concluded that providing those services to a person in a diversion program or alleged constructive custody did not establish state action.

Under the government-nexus test, the connection between the government and the private party’s challenged conduct must be close enough for the conduct to be treated as the government’s own. Navarrette alleged that Options had contracts with Alameda County and the State of California to provide treatment services. The court held that those contracts, without allegations that a government agency controlled or was deeply involved in Options’ management of its housing or outpatient services, did not establish the required connection.

The court also noted that four of Navarrette’s six § 1983 claims were based on alleged violations of state-law rights, while § 1983 requires a violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or federal law. Because the defendants had not raised that issue, however, the court did not rely on it as the basis for dismissal.

Ruling and Case Status

Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint, with leave to amend. The court allowed Navarrette to file a First Amended Complaint by August 19, 2022, either to cure the allegations concerning action under color of state law or to assert claims that do not require that showing. The court continued the Case Management Conference from August 26, 2022, to December 2, 2022, and required a joint case-management statement by November 23, 2022.