Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 06-13-2001

Case Style: Myron S. Gritchen v. Gordon W. Collier

Case Number: 99-56940

Judge: Rymer

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Plaintiff's Attorney: Daniel P. Tokaji, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Los Angeles, California and Alan L. Schlosser, ACLU Foundation of Northern California, San Francisco.

Defendant's Attorney: Larry J. Roberts, Law Offices of James E. Trott, Fountain Valley, California

Daniel S. Murphy, Principal Deputy, Long Beach, California, for amicus curiae City of Long Beach

Mary Frances Prevost, San Diego, California Anti-Slapp Project, et al.

Paul L. Hoffman of Schonbrun Besimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, L.L.P., Venice, California, and Douglas E. Mirell, and Joseph Geisman, Los Angeles, California for amici curiae Individual Civil Rights Attorneys.

Marci Fukuroda, California Women's Law Center, Los Angeles, California, for amicus curiae California's Women's Law Center

Description: Myron S. Gritchen filed a complaint with the Long Beach Police Department about the conduct of Gordon W. Collier, a Long Beach police officer who stopped Gritchen for speed-ing. Collier took umbrage and threatened to sue Gritchen for defamation. Most complaints about public officials are privi-leged in California, but state law allows peace officers to bring an action for defamation against someone who has filed a complaint that is false, was made with knowledge that it was false, and was made with spite, hatred or ill will. Gritchen filed suit in federal court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that California Civil Code § 47.5, which permits such an action, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that it is, and restrained Collier from pro-ceeding with any lawsuit under § 47.5.1 Collier's appeal ques-tions whether Gritchen has stated a claim for deprivation of a constitutional right and whether Collier's threatened suit for defamation, being private, is under color of law or amounts to state action for purposes of relief under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: We conclude that it fails both tests, and therefore reverse.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: