Mulligan v. Nichols, No. 14-55278 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter plaintiff was injured in an altercation with two LAPD officers, he filed an administrative claim against the City, alleging that the officers acted unlawfully. The police union, LAPPL, allegedly with assistance from City officials, responded by accusing plaintiff, a prominent business executive, of being a drug abuser and of having acted aggressively toward the officers. The episode attracted publicity and plaintiff lost his job. Plaintiff then filed suit alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law against defendants. Plaintiff's claims were based on this initial interactions with the LAPD and on the subsequent publicity. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the unlawful retaliation claim and on plaintiff's claim that the LAPD acted negligently. Plaintiff's other claims proceeded to trial and the jury found for defendants. The court concluded that the statements allegedly made against plaintiff as joint state actions by the LAPPL were not sufficiently adverse to support a claim of First Amendment retaliation. Consequently, the district court’s grant of summary judgment for that claim was proper. Similarly, the district court did not err in its decisions regarding plaintiff's police negligence, excessive force, and negligent supervision claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and judgment entered following a jury trial in an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law by Brian Mulligan who alleged, among other things, that Los Angeles police officers together with City of Los Angeles officials and the police officers’ union retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment rights. Mulligan was injured in an altercation with two police officers and subsequently filed an administrative claim against the City of Los Angeles, alleging that the officers had acted unlawfully. The police officers’ union, allegedly with assistance from City officials, responded by accusing Mulligan of being a drug abuser and of having acted aggressively toward the officers. The episode attracted publicity, and Mulligan lost his job with Deutsche Bank. The panel held that the statements allegedly made by defendants against Mulligan were not sufficiently adverse to support a claim of First Amendment retaliation. The defendants did not make any decision or take any state action affecting Mulligan’s rights, benefits, relationship or status with the state. Nor could Mulligan show the loss of a valuable governmental benefit or privilege. The panel concluded that although Mulligan’s reputation was undoubtedly damaged by the increased media attention, 4 MULLIGAN V. NICHOLS which eventually resulted in the loss of his job, such reputational harm is not actionable under § 1983 unless it is accompanied by some more tangible interests. The panel held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment to defendants on Mulligan’s state law negligence claim. The panel held that the causal relationship between the allegedly negligent pre-force conduct of police officers and the later use of force was too attenuated. The panel affirmed the district court’s evidentiary rulings excluding evidence: (1) that Mulligan was not ultimately charged with any crime for his conduct on the night on the incident; and (2) that one of the officers involved in the incident had previously been accused of on-duty sexual assault. Finally, the panel held that once the jury had found that the officers did not act unlawfully, there was no basis for the negligent-supervision claim against the City.
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.