This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
42 U.S.C. Section 1983
First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment

Wayne Spindler v. City of Los Angeles, Herman J. Wesson Jr., Hugo S. Rossitter, Eric Reade, Nelly Nava-Mercado, and Does 1-10

Published: Jan. 31, 2020 | Result Date: May 10, 2019 | Filing Date: Jan. 11, 2017 |

Case number: 2:17-cv-00250 -JLS(E) Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Josephine L. Staton

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Wayne Spindler
(Wayne Spindler, Attorney at Law) in pro per


Defendant

Ruth M. Kwon
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)

Dora A. Gonzalez
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)


Facts

Wayne Spindler filed a civil rights lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles and various individual city agents over actions at a city council meeting on May 11, 2016. Spindler submitted a comment card with various profanities, racial epithets, a drawing of a burning cross, and a drawing of a person hanging from a tree. He was ejected from the council meeting and arrested two days later for making criminal threats. City Councilman Herb Wesson later obtained a restraining order against Spindler.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the arrest was an unconstitutional false arrest made to impugn his First Amendment rights. Plaintiff also contended that the injunction violated the First Amendment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that plaintiff's comment card was a criminal threat against those at the council meeting, particularly Councilman Wesson. Defendant contended the arrest and injunction were legitimate and lawful. Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

Result

The court dismissed the claim after plaintiff's third amended complaint failed to cure any of the deficiencies cited in the second amended complaint.


#133828

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390