Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Stephen Turner, a former California parolee, sued parole supervisor Gregory Sims under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, alleging Sims threatened that 'bad things are going to happen' unless Turner dismissed lawsuits against parole department employees. Turner had been convicted of misdemeanor indecent exposure in 1984 and 1993 and, in 2006, of grand theft and unauthorized practice of medicine, for which he was sentenced to seven years, eight months in prison. He was incarcerated from February 2006 until January 2010 and was on parole from January 2010 to January 2014, subject to GPS monitoring and special conditions as a registered high-risk sex offender.
Turner filed the operative fifth amended complaint in August 2020. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground that Turner's claims were barred by Government Code section 845.8, subdivision (a). In a prior appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed that all claims other than the Bane Act claim were barred by statutory immunity, but reversed as to the Bane Act claim based on the December 7, 2011 threat, observing that Turner would have to prove that 'by threat, intimidation or coercion, Sims attempted to interfere with Turner's right to pursue his lawsuits.'
At the October 2024 jury trial, Turner testified that Sims angrily confronted him in the parole office lobby on December 7, 2011, stating 'if you don't drop your lawsuits bad things are going to happen to you.' Sims denied threatening Turner and testified he was concerned about Turner's housing because Turner was suing one of only two motels in Alameda County that would house sex offenders. The jury answered 'No' to the special verdict question 'Did Gregory Sims make a threat of violence against Stephen Turner?' and judgment was entered for Sims.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected Turner's argument that the prior appellate decision had the effect of deleting a provision of the Bane Act. For the law of the case doctrine to apply, the point of law must have been necessary to the prior decision and actually presented and determined; whether Turner was excused from Civil Code section 52.1, subdivision (k), was not actually presented and determined in the prior appeal. The court stated: 'We therefore reject Turner's argument that our prior appellate decision had the effect of deleting a provision of the Bane Act for purposes of his claim against Sims.'
The court also found no error in declining Turner's proposed instruction allowing a Bane Act violation based on 'a nonviolent threat with severe consequences.' The Directions for Use for CACI No. 3066 state the speech-alone limitation 'would appear to foreclose a claim based on threats, intimidation, or coercion involving a nonviolent consequence.' The court concluded: 'We see no basis in the law to support Turner's proposed instruction that speech alone may violate the Bane Act even if that speech does not itself threaten violence.'
On evidentiary rulings, the court found no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of Turner's sex offender status, special parole conditions, and parole violations, which provided context for the December 7, 2011 interaction and Sims's housing concerns. It upheld exclusion of Turner's proposed expert witnesses on parole best practices as not helpful to whether Sims made a threat of violence, and found no abuse of discretion in excluding testimony about another parole agent's August 2011 statement, evidence of Turner's December 12, 2011 arrest, and two documents offered to show proof of service of his federal complaints.
Key Takeaways
- The law of the case doctrine applies only when a point of law was necessary to the prior decision and actually presented and determined; silence on an issue is not consideration and rejection.
- Under Civil Code section 52.1, subdivision (k), speech alone cannot support a Bane Act claim unless it threatens violence against a specific person and the person reasonably fears violence will be committed.
- A trial court has broad discretion to admit context evidence under Evidence Code section 352 and to exclude expert testimony that would not assist the trier of fact.
- A party's own pleading allegations may open the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence, as Turner's allegations about his parole conditions did here.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that the Bane Act's requirement that speech alone threaten violence is a statutory element that cannot be eliminated through the law of the case doctrine unless the appellate court actually decided that issue; a prior decision silent on subdivision (k) does not excuse compliance with it.
The ruling also illustrates the broad deference appellate courts give to trial courts' evidentiary rulings, particularly relevance determinations under Evidence Code section 352 and the exclusion of expert testimony that does not bear directly on the elements the jury must decide.