Gonzalez v. Spencer, 00-55935.
| Decision Date | 13 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-55935.,00-55935. |
| Citation | 336 F.3d 832 |
| Parties | Raul GONZALEZ, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chandra SPENCER; Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, a Professional Corporation; Los Angeles County, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert Mann, Los Angeles, CA, argued for the plaintiff-appellant. Donald W. Cook, Los Angeles, CA, joined him on the briefs.
Cindy S. Lee, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, Pasadena, CA, argued for defendants-appellees Chandra Spencer and Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence.
Jennifer E. Gysler, Monroy, Averbuck & Gysler, Westlake Village, CA, argued for defendant-appellee County of Los Angeles. Clayton C. Averbuck, Monroy, Averbuck & Gysler, Westlake Village, California, joined her on the brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; William J. Rea, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. CV-00-01944-WJR.
Before HALL, KOZINSKI and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
OPINION
While defending Los Angeles County in a civil rights suit brought by Raul Gonzalez (the "underlying action"), attorney Chandra Spencer accessed Gonzalez's juvenile court file without notifying him and without obtaining authorization from the juvenile court pursuant to California Welfare & Institutions Code § 827(a)(1)(M) and California Rule of Court 1423(b). Spencer used confidential records from the file to cross-examine Gonzalez during his deposition in the underlying action. Gonzalez then brought this suit against Spencer, her firm, Franscell, Strickland, Roberts & Lawrence, and the county for accessing and using his juvenile court file without authorization. He alleged that Spencer's conduct violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and California law. The district court dismissed his claims for damages and for declaratory and injunctive relief.
1. Appellees argue that settlement of the underlying action rendered this case moot because Gonzalez no longer faces a significant prospect of illegal inspection or disclosure. "A case is moot only if interim events have `completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of' an allegedly improper ruling." In re Pintlar Corp., 124 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir.1997) (quoting Wong v. Dep't of State, 789 F.2d 1380, 1384 (9th Cir.1986)). Although Gonzalez need not fear similar injury in the future, the settlement does not affect his claims for damages based on past conduct.
2. Spencer acted under color of state law. She was retained to represent state entities and their employees in litigation. She inspected Gonzalez's file in the course of that representation, and used her status to gain access to the file. Her role was analogous to that of a state prosecutor rather than a public defender, because she acted on behalf of the state rather than as its adversary. See Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 323 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 445, 70 L.Ed.2d 509 (1981).
Spencer was not "[c]ourt personnel" for purposes of section 827(a)(1)(A). She was not a court employee and did not perform functions routinely performed by court employees. Rather, she was an outside service provider retained to represent the court with respect to its pecuniary interests. Michael v. Gates, 38 Cal. App.4th 737, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 163 (1995), is not on point. One of the statutes at issue there, California Evidence Code § 1043, placed rights to LAPD personnel files in the LAPD as an institution. The privilege to the files belonged to the LAPD itself as well as the individual officers. See Michael, 38 Cal.App.4th at 744, 45 Cal. Rptr.2d 163. By contrast, neither the juvenile court nor its personnel were entitled to share Gonzalez's case file with counsel simply to protect their own pecuniary interests.
Spencer therefore had to get court permission before inspecting Gonzalez's file. State law required her to petition the juvenile court. See Cal. Welf. & Inst.Code § 827(a)(1)(M); Cal. Rules of Court 1423(b). Although the district court could have ordered disclosure notwithstanding state law, the file was still presumptively protected until it did. See 23 Charles Alan Wright & Kenneth W. Graham, Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5428, at 817 (1980) (). Spencer could not inspect the file on her own initiative on the theory that she could have obtained permission, had she asked. Cf. United States v. Echegoyen, 799 F.2d 1271, 1280 n. 7 (9th Cir.1986) (). Nor could the district court authorize her search retroactively. If Spencer violated Gonzalez's constitutional rights, he is entitled at least to nominal damages, even if Spencer could have obtained the documents lawfully. See Wilks v. Reyes, 5 F.3d 412, 416 (9th Cir.1993).
Because Spencer improperly obtained access to Gonzalez's juvenile court file, we need not reach the question whether Spencer's use of Gonzalez's file in depositions also violated his constitutional rights.
3. Spencer is not entitled to qualified immunity. She is a private party, not a government employee, and she has pointed to "no special reasons significantly favoring an extension of governmental immunity" to private parties in her position. See Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 412, 117 S.Ct. 2100, 138 L.Ed.2d 540 (1997).
Gonzalez's claims were not estopped or waived by his mere pursuit of the underlying action or his failure to object immediately when Spencer first disclosed the file. He did not take "inconsistent positions" with respect to the file's confidentiality, Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir.1996) (internal quotation marks omitted), nor did he voluntarily "relinquish[]... a known right," Yoshida v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 240 F.2d 824, 829 (9th Cir. 1957).
* * *
The district court's dismissal of the damages claims is reversed. The injunctive claims are dismissed as moot. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED in part, DISMISSED in part and REMANDED. Costs to appellant.
Gonzalez contends that Spencer's access to and use of his juvenile court case file constituted a violation of the Fourth Amendment. A person claiming a right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment must demonstrate a "justifiable," "reasonable" or "legitimate expectation of privacy." Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 739, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979) (internal quotations omitted); see Kee v. City of Rowlett, 247 F.3d 206, 211-12 (5th Cir.2001) (). Gonzalez bases his Fourth Amendment claim on California law, which, he contends, forbade Spencer from gaining access to and using his juvenile court case file without first seeking authorization from the California juvenile court.
Specifically, Gonzalez contends that California Welfare and Institutions Code § 827 and California Rule of Court 1423 required Spencer to petition the juvenile court in order to obtain access to his file. He asserts that § 827 establishes that juvenile court case files are confidential, and that Rule 1423 provides that inspection of files by persons other than those specified in § 827 can be authorized only by the juvenile court. I agree with Gonzalez that § 827 establishes the confidentiality of juvenile court case files. I also agree that Rule 1423 requires that the juvenile court authorize access to those files by parties within the contemplation of § 827, and that Rule 1423 restricts the ways in which files can be used. However, I disagree with Gonzalez (and the majority) as to the status of Spencer and her law firm, and as to the access and use that are permitted. I would hold that because Spencer and her firm represented the juvenile court in connection with the § 1983 case brought by Gonzalez, and because Spencer obtained and used Gonzalez's juvenile court case file only in depositions of a court employee and Gonzalez himself in connection with that representation, Spencer did not violate § 827 or Rule 1423.
Section 827(a)(1)(A) provides, "[A] [juvenile] case file may be inspected only by the following: (A) Court personnel." Section 827(a)(2) provides, in pertinent part, "[J]uvenile case files ... shall be released to the public pursuant to an order by the juvenile court after a petition has been filed and interested parties have been afforded an opportunity to file an objection." I read § 827(a)(1)(A) to allow "court personnel," including a retained attorney representing the juvenile court in litigation, to "inspect" a juvenile court case file of a plaintiff in that litigation without the necessity of first filing a petition with a judge of the juvenile court. Further, I do not read § 827(a)(2), which requires a petition if a juvenile court case file is to be "released to the public," to require a petition when the file is to be used in depositions of a court employee and of the plaintiff.
Rule 1423(b) provides, in pertinent part:
Only those persons specified in sections 827 and 828 may inspect juvenile court records without authorization from the court....
... The court shall permit disclosure of, discovery of, or access to juvenile court records or proceedings only insofar as is necessary, and only if there is a reasonable likelihood that the records in question will disclose information or evidence of substantial relevance to the pending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- White v. Lambert
-
Delia v. City Of Rialto
...panels cannot overrule a circuit precedent; that power is reserved to the circuit court sitting en banc.”). In Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832 (9th Cir.2003), another panel of this court held that a private attorney representing a county was not entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 834-......
-
Gifford v. Kampa, 2:17-CV-2421-TLN-DMC
...that is fairly attributable to the government. See Sutton v. Providence St Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1999). In Gonzalez v. Spencer, the Ninth Circuit explained that a privateattorney who is retained to represent state entities and their employees in litigation acts under......
-
Filarsky v. Delia
...itself bound by Circuit precedent and therefore "not free to follow the Cullinan decision." 621 F.3d, at 1080 (citing Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832 (C.A.9 2003) ).Filarsky filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted. 564 U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 70, 180 L.Ed.2d 939 (2011).II Section 1......
-
Qualified Immunity for "private" § 1983 Defendants After Filarsky v Delia
...apply market pressure rationale or analyze whether that might mollify the need for immunity. See id. at 310-11.106. Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832, 834 (9th Cir. 2003), abrogated by Filarsky v. Delia, 132 S. Ct. 1657 (2012).107. Id. at 835 ("Spencer is not entitled to qualified immunity.......
-
Privatization and Its Discontents
...Circuit case which suggested that, in light of Richardson, private citizens may be entitled to qualified immunity); Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam) (holding that the private citizen defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity because "no special reas......
-
Case Law Updates
...to amend, which was reviewed for abuse of discretion.The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiffs' reliance on Gonzalez v. Spencer, 336 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003) was misplaced. The appellate court's read of Gonzalez was it did not recognize a constitutional right to privacy in juvenil......