Smith v. Flores

Background

Jeffery Thomas Smith, representing himself, used the Napa County Library in Calistoga without a face mask on January 11, 2022. He alleged that he could not read a computer screen or book while wearing a mask because the mask fogged his reading glasses. Jacqueline Flores, identified as a librarian at the Napa County Library, told Smith to wear a mask and called the police when he refused. Smith was wearing a mask when the police arrived.

Smith’s amended complaint alleged violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due-process rights, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clause. He also alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The County of Napa and Flores moved to dismiss the entire complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Court’s Analysis

Due process. The court dismissed Smith’s Fifth Amendment due-process claims because that provision applies only to the federal government, while his claims were against Flores and the County. The court also dismissed his Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-process claim without leave to amend. It concluded that the alleged inability to read while wearing a mask did not involve a fundamental right, so rational-basis review applied. The court found a rational relationship between the mask mandate and the legitimate government interest of limiting the spread of COVID-19. The court stated that amendment would be futile.

Bill of attainder. The court dismissed this claim without leave to amend. It concluded that the mask mandate was not a bill of attainder because the complaint did not show that the mandate was intended to punish Smith or anyone else. The court found that the mandate served the nonpunitive purpose of preventing the spread of COVID-19.

Equal protection. The court dismissed the Equal Protection claim with leave to amend. Smith appeared to allege that people who wear reading glasses were treated differently, but he did not allege that the mask mandate was enforced inconsistently or only against that group.

Americans with Disabilities Act. The court dismissed the ADA claim against Flores without leave to amend because an individual may not be sued under the ADA in her individual capacity. The court dismissed the ADA claim against the County with leave to amend. It concluded that Smith had not alleged that he was excluded from a public activity because of a disability and had not alleged facts showing intentional discrimination. The court also noted that Smith did not allege that he requested and was denied a mask that would have allowed him to use his reading glasses.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed this claim with leave to amend. Smith labeled a cause of action as intentional infliction of emotional distress but did not provide factual allegations describing extreme and outrageous conduct or severe emotional distress.

Disposition

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed without leave to amend the Fifth Amendment due-process claim, the Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim, the bill-of-attainder claim, and the ADA claim against Flores. It dismissed with leave to amend the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim, the ADA claim against the County, and the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. Any amended complaint had to be filed by April 3, 2024. The order stated that failure to amend by that date would result in dismissal with prejudice, and that no additional parties or claims could be added without the court’s permission or the defendant’s agreement.