In Devi v. Sacramento Bhartiya Sabha, (ED CA, May 2, 2025), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissal of a suit against a church and the city by plaintiff who was removed from a church service by police serving her with a trespass notice at the request of church board members. The court said in part:
Plaintiff alleges that the Board of Trustees and the President of the Church defendant prohibited her from entering the Church and “exercising her rights to freely practice her religious beliefs and to her rights to free speech” under the First Amendment.... She alleges that she was removed from the Church because the Church defendant did not approve of plaintiff’s opinions and questions and was attempting to stop her from stating these opinions.... She alleges the Church defendant retaliated against her by preventing her from attending services because she expressed her opinions and concerns about the Church’s finances....
To state a claim for a violation of the First Amendment, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted under the color of state law....
In order to successfully bring her claim, plaintiff has to show that there is significant state involvement in the private party’s actions. Plaintiff has made no allegations that the Church defendant’s alleged decision to exclude her from the Church is a “traditionally and exclusively governmental” function. She also still has not demonstrated that there was “significant” state involvement in the Church defendant’s decision to remove her from the Church. Based on plaintiff’s allegations, the Church decided to call the police to remove plaintiff from the Church premises because she was trespassing. To the extent plaintiff is alleging that the Church defendant was a state actor because it had plaintiff removed by the City of Sacramento Police Department, “merely complaining to the police does not convert a private party into a state actor.”
