Johnson v. Fliger

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 22, 2025·No. 24-6008·Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DAYMON JOHNSON, No. 24-6008 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:23-cv-00848-KES-CDB Eastern District of California, v. Fresno JERRY FLIGER, in his official capacity as ORDER President, Bakersfield College; et al.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Before: CALLAHAN, BADE, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

The Memorandum Disposition, filed on July 14, 2025, is amended by the

attached Amended Memorandum Disposition, which is concurrently filed with this

order.

With the filing of the Amended Memorandum Disposition, the panel

unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The petition for panel

rehearing, Dkt. 55, is DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be

entertained. NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DAYMON JOHNSON, No. 24-6008 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:23-cv-00848-KES-CDB v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM* JERRY FLIGER, in his official capacity as President, Bakersfield College; SONYA CHRISTIAN, in her official capacity as Chancellor, California Community Colleges; ROMEO AGBALOG, in his official capacity as Trustee, Kern Community College District; JOHN S. CORKINS, in his official capacity as President, Kern Community College District Board of Trustees; KAY S. MEEK, in her official capacity as Trustee, Kern Community College District; KYLE CARTER, in his official capacity as Trustee, Kern Community College District; CHRISTINA SCRIVNER, in her official capacity as Trustee, Kern Community College District; NAN GOMEZ- HEITZEBERG, in her official capacity as Vice President, Kern Community College District Board of Trustees; YOVANI JIMENEZ, in his official capacity as Clerk, Kern Community College District Board of Trustees; RICHARD MCCROW, in his

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. official capacity as Dean of Instruction, Bakersfield College; STEVEN BLOOMBERG, in his official capacity as Chancellor, Kern Community College District,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kirk Edward Sherriff, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 2, 2025 San Francisco, California

Plaintiff-Appellant Daymon Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his

motion for a preliminary injunction as moot and challenges the dismissal without

prejudice of his first amended complaint on Article III standing grounds. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we exercise pendent appellate

jurisdiction to consider whether Johnson has standing. See Melendres v. Arpaio,

695 F.3d 990, 996–97 (9th Cir. 2012). “Denial of a motion for a preliminary

injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion and the underlying legal principles

de novo.” Int’l Franchise Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 803 F.3d 389, 398 (9th Cir.

2015). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.1

1 Johnson’s motion to substitute parties under Fed. R. App. 43(c)(2), Dkt. 4, is granted. The Clerk is directed to update the case caption accordingly.

2 24-6008 1. We reverse the district court’s conclusion that Johnson lacks standing

to sue Defendant-Appellant officials of the Kern Community College District (the

District Defendants) under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, §§ 53602(b), 53605(a), and, to

the extent it incorporates those regulations, Cal. Educ. Code § 87732(f). Johnson

has sufficiently alleged “an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably

affected with a constitutional interest” under the First Amendment. Susan B.

Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 159 (2014) (citation omitted). His

intended conduct is “arguably proscribed” by these provisions, id. at 162, because

they directly regulate Johnson as an employee and faculty member of the Kern

Community College District (KCCD). See Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, §§ 53602(b),

53605(a).

Johnson has also adequately alleged a “credible threat” of enforcement

under these provisions. Driehaus, 573 U.S. at 159. Johnson has established a

“‘concrete plan’ to violate the law” based on his allegations regarding his desired

speech and his refusal to express support for diversity, equity, inclusion, and

accessibility (DEIA) principles. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rts. Comm’n, 220

F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (citation omitted); see also Peace

Ranch, 93 F.4th at 488 (explaining that the “concept of ‘intention’ is more

counterfactual than practical” and that courts “ask whether the plaintiff would have

the intention to engage in the proscribed conduct, were it not proscribed”). And

3 24-6008 importantly, the District Defendants have not disavowed enforcement. Peace

Ranch, LLC v. Bonta, 93 F.4th 482, 490–91 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining that

whether a credible threat of enforcement exists “often rises or falls with the

enforcing authority’s willingness to disavow enforcement”).

Johnson’s allegations establishing a credible threat of enforcement are not

defeated by the absence of a specific threat of enforcement by the District

Defendants, see Isaacson v. Mayes, 84 F.4th 1089, 1100 (9th Cir. 2023), and the

lack of a history of enforcement carries little weight because these regulations were

enacted only months before Johnson filed suit, see Tingley v. Ferguson, 47 F.4th

1055, 1069 (9th Cir. 2022). Therefore, Johnson has alleged sufficient facts to

establish standing to sue the District Defendants under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5,

§§ 53602(b), 53605(a), and Cal. Educ. Code § 87732(f), to the extent it

incorporates those regulations.

2. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that Johnson lacks standing

to sue the District Defendants under the other statutes, regulations, and policies he

challenges: Cal. Educ. Code §§ 87732 (except as stated above) and 87735; KCCD

Board Policy 3050 (Policy 3050); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, §§ 51200, 51201, 53425,

53601, 53602(a) and (c), and 53605(b) and (c); and the Chancellor of the

California Community Colleges’ (CCC) DEIA Competencies and Criteria. These

provisions do not “arguably proscribe[]” Johnson’s intended conduct, and he faces

4 24-6008 no “credible threat” of enforcement under them. Driehaus, 573 U.S. at 159, 162.

The prohibitions in Cal. Educ. Code §§ 87732 and 87735 against “[i]mmoral

or unprofessional conduct,” “[d]ishonesty,” or “[u]nsatisfactory performance,” as

well as Policy 3050’s prohibition against “aggression, threat, harassment, ridicule,

or intimidation,” do not apply to Johnson’s intended political speech. Although

KCCD disciplined and terminated Professor Matthew Garrett under these

provisions, allegedly in part for speech similar to Johnson’s intended speech, it is

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Johnson v. Fliger, (9th Cir. 2025).

Johnson v. Fliger (Johnson v. Fliger) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related