BEZIS v. CITY OF LIVERMORE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-19No. No. 19-17386

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bezis's Second Amended Complaint. City Council meetings constitute limited public forums where reasonable content-neutral restrictions on speech are permissible, and because Bezis's off-topic comments could be restricted to the agenda item without infringing his First Amendment rights, he failed to allege a viable constitutional claim; his remaining federal claims depended on the same factual allegations and similarly failed, his state law claims were properly declined under supplemental jurisdiction after federal claims were dismissed, and the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Bezis had not plausibly alleged any constitutional violation.

Jason Bezis sued the City of Livermore and its officials under federal civil rights law, alleging that city council members violated his First Amendment rights and denied him due process and equal protection when they interrupted his comments during a February 2017 council meeting and redirected him to stay on the agenda topic. The district court dismissed his complaint twice—first with permission to file an amended version, then without such permission—finding that his allegations failed to state valid constitutional claims. On appeal, Bezis challenged the dismissals across multiple theories, including First Amendment retaliation, due process violations, and equal protection violations, as well as supplemental state law claims.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether city council enforcement of agenda-based speaking rules violates the First Amendment
Whether off-topic public comments receive First Amendment protection in limited public forums
Whether remaining constitutional claims survive dismissal when the First Amendment claim fails
Applicability of qualified immunity to city officials in speech restriction cases

Procedural posture

Bezis appealed the district court's grant of the City's motion to dismiss his Second Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which had come after the district court previously dismissed his First Amended Complaint with leave to amend.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM ***

Appellant Jason Adrian Bezis (“Bezis”) brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Livermore, John Marchand, individually and in his capacity as the Mayor of Livermore, Steven Spedowfski and Robert Carling, individually and in their official capacities as members of the Livermore City Council (“City Council”), and Jason Alcala, individually and in his official capacity as Livermore City Attorney (collectively called “the City”). Bezis contended that the City violated his First Amendment rights and his right to due process and equal protection at a City Council meeting on February 27, 2017, when City Council members, the Mayor, and the City Attorney interrupted him with multiple procedural points of order when Bezis strayed from the agenda topic.

The City moved to dismiss Beziss First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which was granted by the district court, with leave to amend. After Bezis filed his Second Amended Complaint, the City again moved to dismiss, and the motion was granted without leave to amend. Bezis appealed to this Court. We affirm the district courts grant of the Citys motion to dismiss.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district courts dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), accepting as true all allegations of fact in a well-pleaded complaint and construing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Karam v. City of Burbank, 352 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). A district courts refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims after all federal claims were dismissed is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Costanich v. Dept of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). A district courts decision on qualified immunity is reviewed de novo. Vazquez v. Cnty. of Kern, 949 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir. 2020).

The district court did not err in dismissing Beziss Second Amended Complaint. City Council meetings are limited public forums in which it is appropriate to place reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech, in addition to restrictions on speech content, so long as those regulations are viewpoint neutral and enforced in a neutral manner. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 975 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc). The district court properly held that because Beziss comments were off the topic of the agenda, the City Council was entitled to restrict him to the agenda item, without improperly infringing on his First Amendment rights, and that Beziss Second Amended Complaint failed to allege any new facts that would impact that holding. Therefore, the district court rightly concluded that Bezis failed to state a First Amendment claim upon which relief could be granted.

Further, the district court properly concluded that because Beziss remaining constitutional claims relied on the same facts alleged to support his First Amendment claim for relief, those claims necessarily failed as well.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Beziss supplemental state law claims. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), a district court “may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim” when “all claims over which it has original jurisdiction” have been dismissed. The district courts dismissal of Beziss state law claims, after all of Beziss federal claims were dismissed, was a proper exercise of the district courts discretion.

Finally, the district court did not err in finding that Bezis had alleged no facts to overcome the individual Appellees’ qualified immunity. To determine whether qualified immunity applies, we ask whether (1) the plaintiff has plausibly alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct at issue. Wilk v. Neven, 956 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009)). The district court properly found that Bezis had not plausibly alleged a violation of a constitutional right, and thus had not alleged sufficient facts to overcome the individual Appellees’ qualified immunity.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. The district court also properly dismissed Beziss facial First Amendment challenge. The facial challenge was dismissed as moot because the City represented that the challenged procedural rule had been amended twice since the City Council meeting at issue, and Bezis offered no response in opposition, thus, as the district court found, “effectively conceding the point.”