Page 1
Ninth Circuit:
Conspiracy Suit Against County, Former D.A. Lacked Merit
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the County of San Bernardino, former District Attorney Michael Ramos and others in an action in which a former assistant assessor claimed he was retaliated against through prosecutorial persecution based on an exercise of his First Amendment rights.
While immunity barred liability in connection with the prosecution of him on charges of perjury and offering false or forged documents—which ended with a hung jury and charges being dropped—plaintiff James Erwin sought imposition of liability based on a prolonged investigation of him in connection with his role, while a supervisor’s deputy, in securing a $102 million settlement of a developer’s suit against the county. He allegedly received pay-offs, including a Rolex watch.
Three alleged co-conspirators were acquitted in a separate 2017 trial days before the jury’s deadlock in the prosecution of Erwin.
Erwin sued, alleging retaliation based on such First Amendment activity as petitioning county officials to approve a settlement with the developer and publicly commenting publicly on the county intransigence during settlement negotiations.
|
|
|
JAMES ERWIN former county official |
District Court Decision
District Court Judge Jesus G. Bernal of the Central District of California on July 28, 2020 granted summary judgment to the defendants—the county, Ramos, two prosecutors and two investigators—in the action brought by Erwin, as well as consolidated actions instituted by others. Bernal said as to Erwin’s allegations:
“Many of these asserted First Amendment activities are so vague, unbounded by time, or even prospective, that it is difficult to consider with any precision whether one or more of these factors ‘substantially motivated’ Defendants to investigate.”
He added that “Erwin is overbroad in characterizing the investigative acts that were retaliatory, and essentially claims that the investigation as a whole was motivated by a broadbased conspiracy.”
Ninth Circuit Opinion
A Ninth Circuit panel agreed, saying in a memorandum opinion:
“The district court correctly determined that Erwin has not presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of fact with respect to causation. While the record is replete with evidence of hostility toward Erwin, whom the defendants considered ‘bottom-sucking’ and ‘evil.’ there is no indication that the defendants disliked Erwin because of his protected speech or that any animosity existed before the start of the investigation. Instead, that animosity was rooted in the defendants’ belief that he had extorted and bribed county officials in the course of settlement negotiations. Perhaps the defendants were mistaken, but even so, they were free to investigate someone they thought had committed a crime—and also free to dislike him because of it. Without evidence of retaliatory motive, there is no First Amendment violation.”
The case is Erwin v. Ramos, 20-55903.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company