David Glen Brown v. Contra Costa County, Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office, Mark Peterson, Karen Zelis-Holder, Doug MacMaster
Published: Nov. 3, 2012 | Result Date: Oct. 9, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 3:2012-cv-01923 Bench Decision – Dismissal
Facts
Prosecutor David Brown filed suit against Contra Costa County District Attorney Mark Peterson, alleging that he was subjected to a series of demotions because of his race and allegiance to another defense attorney who had run against Peterson for District Attorney in 2010.
Result
As to Brown's First Amendment violation claim, the Court held that he cannot state a cause of action as a matter of law since he was clearly in a "policymaking" position and that Peterson was entitled, after the election, to reassign employees into policymaking positions as he wished. The Court stated, "Plaintiff cannot maintain a First Amendment claim based simply on the fact that a newly elected District Attorney opted to place his own people around him, and to move plaintiff to another unit within the D.A.'s Office." The Court dismissed Plaintiff's First Amendment claim with prejudice. As to Plaintiff's claims based on 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, those causes of action were also dismissed with leave to amend. The Court ruled that as pled, there were no facts alleged supporting an inference of intentional discrimination or harassment based on race to support the claim under the Equal Protection Clause. As to the Section 1981 and 1983 causes of action, the Court stated that Plaintiff's claims based on the continuous violation theory were tenuous given that he alleged incidents that occurred as many as ten years ago and that the facts did not support the elements necessary to constitute viable claims for discrimination, retaliation or harassment.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390