Travis White v. County of San Bernardino

*553 MEMORANDUM *

Travis White challenges several of the district court’s rulings that resulted in judgment for defendants. We affirm.

1. White argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on his First Amendment claim. We disagree. To demonstrate retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, White must prove that the officers’ desire to chill his speech was a but-for cause of their actions. See Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 900-01 (9th Cir.2008); Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1231-32 (9th Cir.2006). We have previously affirmed the dismissal of a First Amendment retaliation claim on summary judgment when there was “very strong evidence of probable cause and very weak evidence of a retaliatory motive.” Dietrich, 548 F.3d at 901 .

Here, there was strong evidence supporting reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down search of White, which is what led to White’s removal from the car and the escalation of his encounter with the police. The officers saw damage to White’s vehicle that was inconsistent with his claim that he had merely run into the curb; they observed White wearing cotton gloves and saw him reach…

dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent in part, as to the federal and state retaliation claims.

On summary judgment, viewing the facts in Plaintiff White’s favor as we must, there is evidence from which a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that the officers were motivated by White’s protected speech to conduct the pat-down search. Both officers’ affidavits stated that White repeatedly cursed at them and asked, “Why are you always fucking with me?” before he exited the car and thus before any search occurred. Similarly, Defendant Addy said in deposition testimony that White answered requests to get out of the car with, “You guys are just fucking with me,” while still in the car. Further, Addy testified that his search was motivated by White’s “uncooperative behavior” and his “demeanor,” which a fact-finder reasonably could conclude meant — at least in significant part — White’s cursing and his unflattering comments about police.

Generally speaking, resolving an issue as a matter of law is proper only when its resolution “is so obvious that reasonable minds [could] not differ.” SEC v. Todd, 642 F.3d 1207,1220 (9th Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 08 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRAVIS WHITE, No. 10-56042

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00713-JHN-

FMO

v.

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; SAN MEMORANDUM *

BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF-

CORONER DEPARTMENT; DONALD

RUSK; MARK ADDY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 5, 2012 Pasadena, California

Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Travis White challenges several of the district court’s rulings that resulted in

judgment for defendants. We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 1. White argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment

to defendants on his First Amendment claim. We disagree. To demonstrate

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, White must prove that…