Hamilton

Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino

Good Law

325 F. Supp. 2d 1087·2004 WL 1551460·32 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2594·2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12586

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 2004ED CV 00-107-RTCalifornia3,963 words

Opinion

Timlin, J.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LA FRANCE HAMILTON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO THE FOURTH CLAIM IN HIS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

The court, Judge Robert J. Timlin, has read and considered plaintiff La France Hamilton (“Plaintiff’)’s motion for summary adjudication (“motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) (“Rule 56”) as to the fourth claim in his second amended complaint (“SAC”); defendants City of San Bernardino (“City”) and Stephen Jarvis (“Jarvis”) (collectively “Defendants”)’ opposition; and Plaintiffs reply. Based on such consideration, the court rules as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

On August 9, 2000, the court issued its order (“August 9, 2000 order”) denying the City’s motion to dismiss as to the fourth claim in Plaintiffs first amended complaint, which alleged that Cal.Penal Code § 148.6 (“Section 148.6”) violates the First Amendment. See Hamilton v. City of San Bernardino, 107 F.Supp.2d 1239 (C.D.Cal.2000). In its August 9, 2000 order, the court found that Section 148.6 is facially unconstitutional. Plaintiff subsequently filed his SAC in which he restated the fourth claim for declaratory relief alleging, that Section 148.6 violates the First…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.