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
First Amendment
False Arrest

Joshua Aaron Hollamon v. City of Los Angeles, et al.

Published: Mar. 29, 2024 | Result Date: Dec. 28, 2023 | Filing Date: Dec. 2, 2022 |

Case number: 2:22-cv-08778-SB-MAR Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

Stanley Blumenfeld Jr.

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Robert L. Bastian Jr.
(Bastian & Dini)

Marina R. Dini
(Bastian & Dini)


Defendant

Christina P. Schmidt
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)


Facts

Plaintiff Joshua Hollamon applied washable spray-chalk proclaiming "Black Lives Matter" and "Power to the People" on the sidewalk and a pedestal in front of the North Hollywood station of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). He was arrested for vandalism and detained in a holding cell for part of a day before being released on his own recognizance. After Hollamon completed a pre-plea diversion program, all charges were dismissed. He sued the City of Los Angeles, its police chief, and three police officers for violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and state law, alleging retaliation for exercise of his First Amendment rights, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and other wrongdoing.

Result

Because there was probable cause to arrest Hollamon and he had provided insufficient evidence to support his theories of liability not barred by probable cause, the court granted summary judgment on all of Hollamon's claims. The court rejected plaintiff's First Amendment retaliatory arrest and malicious prosecution claim, brought under the "Nieves exception" [Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (2019)], because plaintiff provided insufficient objective evidence "that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been." In so ruling, the court relied on an evidentiary test applied in Gonzalez v. Trevino, 42 F.4th 487 (5th Cir. 2022) which is currently the subject of a circuit split and case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Gonzalez v. Trevino, 144 S.Ct. 325.

Other Information

Hollamon has appealed the ruling in his case to the Ninth Circuit.


#142656

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

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