Mazzeo v. Gibbons
2009 WL 1872978, 649 F.Supp.2d 1182, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54986 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Deliberate retaliation by state actors against an individual for exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government by filing a police report is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, a public official's intentional and baseless differential treatment of a 'class of one' for an improper motive can form the basis of an Equal Protection Clause violation.
Facts:
- On October 13, 2006, Chrissy Israel Mazzeo and her friend Pennie Mossett-Puhek joined a table at a restaurant with James Gibbons, then a U.S. Congressman and gubernatorial candidate, and his campaign manager, Sigmund Rogich.
- Mazzeo alleges that over the next two hours, Gibbons made unwelcome sexual advances, repeatedly touching her thigh and inviting her to his hotel room.
- After leaving the restaurant, Mazzeo claims she followed Gibbons into a parking garage where he allegedly grabbed her, pinned her against a wall, and threatened to rape her.
- Mazzeo escaped and called 911. While she waited for police, she alleges Gibbons located her and warned she would be 'sorry for calling 911.'
- In the days following the incident, Mazzeo alleges that Puhek, acting on behalf of Rogich, called her multiple times and threatened that she and her baby would be killed if she did not drop the charges against Gibbons.
- Mazzeo alleges that Sheriff Bill Young, a political ally of Gibbons, conspired with Gibbons, Rogich, and Gibbons's attorney Donald Campbell to use the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) to obstruct the investigation.
- This alleged obstruction included destroying surveillance videos that would have corroborated Mazzeo's account and releasing misleading videos to the press.
- Mazzeo claims that as a result of the defendants' actions, she was publicly defamed, blacklisted from her profession as a cocktail waitress in Las Vegas, and forced to move out of state.
Procedural Posture:
- Chrissy Israel Mazzeo filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against James Gibbons and several other individuals and entities.
- Mazzeo filed a First Amended Complaint asserting claims for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as several state-law tort claims.
- The defendants each filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.
- In response to the motions, Mazzeo filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint to add detail and new claims.
- The District Court considered the defendants' motions to dismiss in conjunction with the plaintiff's motion to amend.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a complaint state plausible claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 where it alleges state and private actors conspired to retaliate against a person for filing a police report and that state officials treated that person differently than other crime victims for improper political motives?
Opinions:
Majority - Hunt, Chief Judge
Yes, a complaint states plausible claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation and 'class of one' equal protection violations under these circumstances, while other claims may be dismissed. The court found that Mazzeo sufficiently alleged that the defendants retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment right to petition the government by filing a police report. The alleged conduct—including a coordinated campaign to smear her character, threaten her, and taint the police investigation—was sufficient to chill a person of ordinary firmness from future First Amendment activities. The court also held that Mazzeo stated a valid 'class of one' equal protection claim against Sheriff Young and Metro by alleging they intentionally treated her differently from other sexual assault victims for the improper political motive of protecting Gibbons, without any rational basis. However, the court dismissed several other claims, including the right-of-access claim because a private citizen has no cognizable interest in the criminal prosecution of another, the 'stigma-plus' due process claim because her job loss was caused by third parties (casinos), and the defamation claim because statements made to police during an investigation are absolutely privileged.
Analysis:
This order serves as a strong illustration of the pleading standards for civil rights claims under the Twombly/Iqbal framework, particularly in cases involving alleged conspiracies between public officials and private citizens. The decision affirms that First Amendment retaliation claims are viable when state actors use their power to punish individuals for reporting crimes. It also demonstrates the utility of the 'class of one' equal protection theory in combating arbitrary and malicious government action directed at a single individual. By dismissing several other constitutional and state-law claims, the case highlights the narrowness of certain legal theories and the high procedural bars plaintiffs must clear, such as the requirement of class-based animus for a § 1985(2) claim.
