Williams v. State of California, No. 12-55601 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs appealed from the district court's dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. 1983 complaint alleging that defendants violated plaintiffs' First Amendment right to freedom of religion by forcing them to provide direct staff support to a developmentally disabled client who wished to attend Jehovah's Witness services. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint against Defendant Matsushita because plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts against Matsushita other than to identify her title; the district court's holding that defendants' interpretation of the Lanterman Act, Cal. Welf. & Ins. Code 4500-4906, and its regulations, did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and the district court's denial of leave to amend because of futility of amendment. The court adopted the district court's well-reasoned and comprehensive disposition.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal and adopted the district court’s disposition in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by two residential community care facilities and their employees alleging violations of their First Amendment right to freedom of religion when they were forced to provide direct staff support to a developmentally disabled client who wished to attend Jehovah’s Witness services. Plaintiff named as defendants Claire Matsushita, Regional Manager of the Community Care Licensing Division of the California Department of Social Services, and a regional community agency and its employees that contracted with the state to assist in implementation of California's Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, a statutory scheme enacted by the California legislature to provide services for developmentally disabled persons. The panel affirmed (1) the district court’s dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint against Matsushita because plaintiffs failed to allege specific facts against Matsushita other than to identify her title; (2) the district court’s holding that defendants’ interpretation of the Lanterman Act and its regulations did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments; and (3) the district court’s denial of leave to amend because of futility of amendment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.