The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REGINALD LENARD SMITH, No. 12-56690
individually and as a class representative,
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-10666-GAF-
Plaintiff - Appellee, PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 7, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Sheriff Lee Baca appeals the district court’s denial of qualified immunity on
his motion for judgment on the pleadings in this putative class action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff Reginald Smith alleges that he has twice been wrongfully
arrested on a Los Angeles County Superior Court felony warrant issued for another
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
person with a similar name and physical characteristics, resulting in his
incarceration and the denial of his passport application. Smith claims that the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s refusal to update its warrant database with
readily available biometric information about warrant subjects and exonerees
violates his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The only issue before us is
whether Baca is entitled to qualified immunity regarding Smith’s Fourteenth
Amendment claim based upon alleged violations of his right to international travel.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we reverse.
The district court erred in concluding that the law was clearly established so
as to put a reasonable official in Baca’s position on notice that his alleged conduct
deprived Smith of the right to international travel without due process of law. See
Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); see also
Green v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 751 F.3d 1039, 1052 (9th Cir. 2014) (requiring
clarity in “the law governing the conduct at issue”). Although the right to
international travel is clearly established in general, see Eunique v. Powell, 302
F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2002), no law clearly establishes that a state official’s actions
leading to the State Department’s discretionary denial of a passport application
may effect a deprivation of the right. See 22 C.F.R. § 51.60(b)(9).
2
We decline to decide whether Smith has adequately pleaded a Fourteenth
Amendment violation. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009). We
also decline to address the Fourth Amendment issues discussed by the parties. We
conclude only that Sheriff Baca is entitled to qualified immunity because the law
governing Smith’s right to travel claim is not clearly established.
Sheriff Baca’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED AS MOOT.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
3