Naffe v. Frey, No. 13-55666 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a conservative political activist, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and related state law causes of action, alleging that defendant, a L.A. County Deputy District Attorney, acted under color of state law when he published derogatory statements about her on his personal blog and on Twitter. The court held that plaintiff has not supported adequately her claim that defendant acted under color of state law for the purposes of section 1983. In this case, the factual allegations compel the conclusion that defendant did not act under color of state law when he blogged and Tweeted about plaintiff because he did so for purely personal reasons, and the communications were unrelated to his work as a county prosecutor. The court concluded that the district court applied an incorrect standard to evaluate the amount in controversy and, as a result, improperly dismissed plaintiff's state law claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of an action brought by conservative political activist Nadia Naffe against Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Patrick Frey, who published derogatory and intimidating statements about Naffe on his personal Internet blog and on Twitter. Affirming the dismissal of Naffe’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the panel held that Naffe’s factual allegations did not sufficiently support her claim that Frey acted under color of state law. The panel determined that: (1) the allegations did not give rise to a reasonable inference that Frey harmed Naffe while on duty; (2) Frey’s comments about Naffe were not sufficiently related to his work as a county prosecutor; and (3) the facts did not support Naffe’s claim that Frey “purported or pretended to act under color of [state] law” when he blogged about her. Finally, the mere fact that Naffe knew Frey was a prosecutor did not mean he abused his government position to violate her rights. Reversing the district court’s dismissal of Naffe’s state law claims, the panel held that the district court erred when it required Naffe to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the amount in controversy for showing federal diversity jurisdiction. The panel held that it could not say to NAFFE V. FREY 3 a legal certainty that Naffe’s claims were worth less than $75,000.01.
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.