Shane Love V Pasadena Police Officers Aaron Villacana

Key Facts

Issues

• The court examines whether Plaintiff Shane Love has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his relationship with Thomas, who was not his biological father and never formally adopted him. The court applies the Glucksberg test to determine if this relationship qualifies as a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• The court analyzes whether the asserted liberty interest in companionship with a father-figure who is neither biological nor legal has its roots in the Nation's history and traditions. The court finds that the relationship derives from state law rather than federal constitutional protections, and that substantive due process has not been extended to such relationships absent a showing of historical recognition.

Holdings

Remedies

Legal Principles

• For motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court applies the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard. A complaint must 'raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence' of the alleged infraction. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, and legal conclusions alone are not entitled to the assumption of truth.
• The court applied the Glucksberg test for substantive due process claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. The analysis requires: (1) a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest, and (2) determining whether that interest is 'objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if it was sacrificed.' The court found no substantive due process protection for the Plaintiff's relationship with Thomas because it was based solely on state law rather than having origins entirely apart from state power.
• The Ninth Circuit held that Defendants waived issue preclusion by removing the refilled case to federal court. The Circuit vacated the prior dismissal and remanded to determine whether Plaintiff had a constitutionally protected liberty interest in his relationship with Thomas. This principle governs when issue preclusion applies and when it may be waived by procedural choices.

Precedent Name

• Obergefell v. Hodges
• Troxel v. Granville
• Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform
• Regino v. Staley
• Washington v. Glucksberg
• Zixiang Li v. Kerry
• Collins v. City of Harker Heights

Cited Statute

• 1870 Cal. Stat. ch. 385, § 3
• California Family Code § 7611(d)
• 1870 Cal. Stat. ch. 385, § 9
• Cal. Civ. Code § 230 (1872)

Judge Name

Passage Text

• the Court defines Plaintiff's asserted liberty interest as follows: a child's right to companionship and society with a father-figure who has received the child into his home and held the child out as his own but who is neither the biological father nor the legal custodian of the child.
• Accordingly, the FAC fails to state a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court additionally concludes that, because Plaintiff cannot allege a violation of a fundamental liberty interest, granting leave to amend would be futile.
• Thus, Thomas' parental status derived exclusively from state law does not suffice to show that the relationship between Plaintiff is Thomas is entitled to substantive due process protection.