Bruce Hampton v. Fred Steen
690 F. App'x 998
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Bruce and Venese Hampton sued Trackwell and others asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, RICO, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), among other theories.
- The district court dismissed the complaint, quashed plaintiffs’ subpoenas, and entered a pre-filing order labeling the Hamptons vexatious litigants.
- The district court concluded plaintiffs alleged only reputational harm (not goodwill) and did not plead a contract-based property interest for procedural due process.
- The district court dismissed the FDCPA claim on an unraised ground—finding Trackwell was not a “debt collector” —without giving plaintiffs notice or an opportunity to amend.
- The district court quashed subpoenas; entered a pre-filing restriction without prior notice or specific findings; and made no tailored limitation tied only to alleged debt-collection conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Section 1983 claims | Hamptons contend defendants violated constitutional rights supporting § 1983 relief | Defendants argue complaint fails to allege a constitutional right violated or state action | Affirmed: § 1983 claims fail for lack of constitutional violation and state action |
| RICO sufficiency | Plaintiffs allege defendants formed an enterprise to engage in racketeering | Defendants argue plaintiffs fail to plead an associated-in-fact enterprise or predicate pattern | Affirmed: RICO claims insufficient—no associated-in-fact enterprise pleaded |
| FDCPA claim dismissal | FDCPA claim alleges unlawful debt-collection practices by Trackwell | Defendants (and district court sua sponte) said Trackwell is not a “debt collector” under the statute | Vacated dismissal: court erred to dismiss on unraised ground without notice; plaintiffs may amend to plead facts showing debt-collector status |
| Pre-filing vexatious-litigant order | Plaintiffs oppose restriction and lack of prior notice | Defendants support pre-filing order given prior filings | Vacated: order entered without notice, lacked substantive findings, and was not narrowly tailored |
| Subpoenas quashed | Plaintiffs sought subpoenas for discovery | Defendants challenged subpoenas as improper | Affirmed: quashing of subpoenas was not an abuse of discretion |
| Standing challenge timing | Plaintiffs claimed standing to proceed | Defendants raised standing attack | Court found standing challenge premature and declined to resolve it now |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co. Ltd., 851 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 367 (9th Cir.) (distinguishing reputation injury from loss of goodwill)
- San Bernardino Physicians’ Servs. Med. Grp., Inc. v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 825 F.2d 1404 (9th Cir.) (contracts creating constitutionally protected property interests)
- Long v. Cty. of L.A., 442 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir.) (elements required for § 1983 claim)
- Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir.) (RICO associated-in-fact enterprise requirement)
- Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of L.A., 761 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir.) (requirements and tailoring for pre-filing vexatious-litigant orders)
- Sparling v. Hoffman Constr. Co., Inc., 864 F.2d 635 (9th Cir.) (rule against dismissing claims without notice when amendment might cure defects)