On June 2, 2021, parents Lori Ann Wiley and Charles Wallace Hanson arrived at a Kern High School District high school to pick up yearbooks for Wiley’s children. Hanson, who was driving, tried to park in a designated handicap space, but a school employee blocked the spot. Wiley and Hanson then engaged in a verbal altercation with District employees, including District Police Officer Michael Whiting and Campus Supervisor Sabrina Fowler. The dispute escalated as additional staff became involved. Eventually, a District employee handed Wiley the yearbooks and Wiley and Hanson left the campus.
The next day, June 3, 2021, Wiley emailed the school a formal complaint about the incident. On June 8, 2021, District Police Chief Edward Komin initiated an investigation into Officer Whiting’s conduct based on Wiley’s complaint. On June 15, 2021, a District compliance officer issued findings that at least one District employee had engaged in rude conduct and would be subject to corrective personnel action. The compliance officer also found that a District employee had made an inappropriate statement to Wiley, saying, “You are a horrible woman.” Wiley claimed the employee actually told her, “You are a horrible mother.”
On June 24, 2021, Officer Whiting submitted an incident report charges against Wiley for disturbing a public school or meeting, annoying a child under 18 years of age, challenging or fighting in public, using offensive words in public, and violating civil rights. Wiley later alleged that Officer Whiting’s report contained no evidence that could establish probable cause. Officer Whiting also prepared two probable cause declarations against Hanson, accusing him of multiple misdemeanors and felony vandalism. Officer Whiting did not prepare any probable cause declaration against Wiley.
On July 9, 2021, the Kern County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint against Wiley, charging her with three misdemeanors: disturbing the peace under Penal Code § 415, disturbing a public school or meeting under Education Code § 32210, and disrupting school activities under Education Code § 44811. On July 15, 2021, District Police Officers Luis Peña and Steven Alvidrez arrested Hanson at Wiley’s home, but they did not arrest Wiley. Instead, they issued her a citation.
During Wiley’s criminal prosecution, she obtained District emails through a public records request, including an April 29, 2021 email from a District employee who was not involved in the June 2, 2021 altercation. In the email, the District employee discussed Wiley’s request to “properly place her children,” and stated: “So good luck with this situation … Erika, you must be soooo happy to be able to walk away from this, although complaints go to HR! So you may get to talk to Lori on a daily basis. LOL! Let’s get this crap done and in place, people! I don’t want to have to lie to her on the phone anymore.”
At some point, Wiley asked the prosecutor handling her case why he refused to dismiss the charges despite what Wiley claimed was their lack of merit. According to Wiley, the prosecutor responded that District employees involved in the incident were angered because Wiley and Hanson had threatened a civil lawsuit against them. On January 3, 2022, after a mistrial, “the court dismissed all three charges in the furtherance of justice.”
On June 1, 2022, Wiley and Hanson filed a civil lawsuit against the District and District police officers Whiting, Komin, Peña, and Alvidrez. On November 8, 2022, Wiley and Hanson voluntarily dismissed their claims against the District and Officer Komin. On December 15, 2022, Wiley filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, and common law torts, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.
42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action against government officials, including police officers, for violating a person’s constitutional rights under color of law. Wiley alleged that District officers violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by retaliating against her for speech and causing her to be criminally charged without probable cause. The Bane Act prohibits anyone from interfering with or attempting to interfere with another person’s constitutional or statutory rights through threats, intimidation, or coercion. Wiley claimed that District officers violated the Bane Act by maliciously prosecuting her in retaliation for her filing a complaint.
Government Code § 815(a) establishes that public entities in California are only liable for injuries when expressly permitted by statute. District officers argued that since Wiley’s claims were barred because she did not base them on a statute authorizing liability. Government Code § 821.6 grants immunity to public employees for actions related to initiating or prosecuting judicial proceedings, even if done maliciously. The officers argued that this immunity applied to their decision to recommend charges against Wiley.
On January 17, 2023, the remaining defendants filed a demurrer, asking the court to dismiss the case. The trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing most of Wiley’s claims without leave to amend. On September 20, 2023, Wiley requested a judgment of dismissal, which the trial court granted. Wiley then appealed.
The court of appeal affirmed the dismissal of most claims but reversed on one issue. The court of appeal ruled that Wiley failed to state a valid claim under the Bane Act, as she did not allege that Officer Whiting’s report recommending charges was motivated by retaliatory animus. The court further held that malicious prosecution alone does not constitute coercion under the Bane Act. Even if Officer Whiting’s report resulted in Wiley’s prosecution, Wiley failed to allege that Officer Whiting knowingly submitted false information or intentionally sought to cause her harm.
The court of appeal also rejected Wiley’s claim of First Amendment retaliation, finding that she did not sufficiently describe the content or intended audience of her speech. Without that information, the court found no basis to conclude that the officers acted in retaliation for protected speech.
The court of appeal upheld immunity defenses for the officers, rejecting Wiley’s argument that a 2022 amendment to the Bane Act eliminating police officer immunity should apply retroactively. The court of appeal found no evidence that the Legislature intended for the amendment to apply retroactively.
However, the court of appeal reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Wiley’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, ruling that the trial court erred in denying Wiley leave to amend. The court of appeal determined it was possible Wiley could allege additional facts to support a constitutional violation. The court of appeal remanded the case for further proceedings limited to Wiley’s § 1983 claim.