Rick Prancevic v. Danny MacAgni , 567 F. App'x 498 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            APR 04 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    RICK PRANCEVIC,                                  No. 11-56798
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03667-JHN-
    AGR
    v.
    DANNY MACAGNI, Individually and as               MEMORANDUM*
    Chief of Police for the Santa Maria Police
    Department; CITY OF SANTA MARIA,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    ______________________
    COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, a
    municipal corporation; DAVID
    SAUNDERS, Individually; ANN
    BRAMSEN, Individually,
    Defendants.
    RICK PRANCEVIC,                                  No. 11-56953
    Plaintiff - Appellee,              D.C. No. 2:10-cv-03667-JHN-
    AGR
    v.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    DAVID SAUNDERS, Individually; ANN
    BRAMSEN, Individually,
    Defendants - Appellants,
    _________________________
    DANNY MACAGNI, Individually and as
    Chief of Police for the Santa Maria Police
    Department; CITY OF SANTA MARIA;
    COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, a
    municipal corporation,
    Defendants.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Jacqueline H. NGUYEN, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted February 4, 2014
    Pasadena, California
    Before: PREGERSON and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and AMON, Chief District
    Judge.**
    Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of qualified immunity. Because
    the parties are familiar with the factual background and procedural history of this
    case, we need not discuss them here. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
    **
    The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, Chief District Judge for the U.S.
    District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    2
    We review de novo a district court’s order denying summary judgment on
    the ground of qualified immunity. Rodis v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 
    558 F.3d 964
    , 968
    (9th Cir. 2009). “[O]ur review is limited to the ‘purely legal issue whether the
    facts [adduced by the plaintiff] . . . support a claim of clearly established law.’”
    Alston v. Read, 
    663 F.3d 1094
    , 1098 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
    (1)    We affirm the denial of qualified immunity with respect to Defendants
    Danny Macagni, Chief of the Santa Maria Police Department, and the City of Santa
    Maria. The evidence adduced by Plaintiff Rick Prancevic would support a finding
    that Chief Macagni banned him from the police department, and did so to punish
    him for protected speech. Such conduct would violate Prancevic’s clearly
    established First Amendment rights. See Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 
    874 F.2d 1310
    , 1319 (9th Cir. 1989) (plaintiff “had a clearly established right to be free
    of intentional retaliation by government officials based upon that individual’s
    constitutionally protected expression”). We cannot decide in this qualified
    immunity appeal whether there would be a First Amendment violation even if the
    facts submitted by Chief Macagni and the City were determined to be true. See
    Jeffers v. Gomez, 
    267 F.3d 895
    , 903 (9th Cir. 2001).
    (2)    We likewise affirm the denial of qualified immunity with respect to
    the Santa Barbara County District Attorney (“DA”) officials. Prancevic has
    3
    adduced evidence that would support a finding that his First Amendment protected
    speech was a substantial or motivating factor in the DA’s decision to transfer his
    work assignment from Santa Maria to Lompoc. For example, the Chief Trial
    Deputy of the DA’s office testified that Defendant David Saunders was
    “infuriated” by Prancevic’s letter, and “[i]n the meeting,” in which Prancevic’s
    transfer was ordered, “the context was obviously punishment.” The DA officials
    are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the case. See Eng v.
    Cooley, 
    552 F.3d 1062
    , 1071 (9th Cir. 2009); Yartzoff v. Thomas, 
    809 F.2d 1371
    ,
    1376 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse
    employment action). Again, whether there would be a First Amendment violation,
    or qualified immunity, on the defendants’ version of the facts are issues we cannot
    decide at this juncture.
    AFFIRMED.
    4