Martino Recchia v. City of La Dept. Animal Svcs.
889 F.3d 553
9th Cir.2018Background
- In Nov. 2011 Animal Control Officers encountered Martino Recchia, a homeless man keeping 20 birds (18 pigeons, a crow, a seagull) in boxes/cages on a sidewalk; many birds appeared deformed, distressed, or diseased while eight pigeons appeared healthy.
- Officers inspected with Recchia’s consent, decided to impound all birds because Recchia could not verify a safe relocation meeting municipal code, and transported them to the City Care Center.
- The next day a City veterinarian examined the birds, sent the crow and seagull to wildlife rescue, and euthanized all pigeons based on perceived serious/incurable illnesses; no blood tests were performed.
- Recchia sued the City and Officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments), Monell against the City, and state tort claims; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim against the Officers and the state-law claims, but vacated and remanded the Fourth Amendment seizure claim (as to healthy-appearing birds) and vacated summary judgment on Monell liability to allow consideration of a new theory and qualified immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless seizure of birds violated the Fourth Amendment | Seizure of healthy-appearing birds was unreasonable and not excused by exigency | Exigent/emergency circumstances justified seizure to protect animal/public health | Genuine factual dispute as to healthy birds; summary judgment vacated and remanded on Fourth Amendment claim |
| Whether exigent circumstances justified warrantless seizure | No urgent risk from outwardly healthy birds; officers initially offered to let healthy birds be relocated | Unsanitary conditions and veterinary opinion supported reasonable concern of disease spread | Exigency justified seizure of visibly sick birds, but not clearly for outwardly healthy ones; factual dispute remains |
| Whether Officers violated procedural due process by not providing pre-seizure hearing (Fourteenth Amendment) | Needed pre-deprivation hearing before seizure/destruction of birds | Statute authorizes immediate seizure when very prompt action required; exigency excused pre-seizure process | Statutory procedures (Penal Code §597.1) provide sufficient process; summary judgment for Officers on due-process claim affirmed |
| Whether City is liable under Monell for policy of not requiring blood tests before euthanizing birds | City's Care Center policy led to constitutional injury; should be allowed to amend to assert this theory | Plaintiff waived the theory by not raising it below | Court vacated summary judgment for City on Monell claims and remanded to allow district court to consider permitting amendment and to evaluate the new theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (treating undisputed videotape as controlling on summary judgment)
- Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir.) (homeless persons’ Fourth Amendment protections for belongings)
- United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (warrantless seizures of property are per se unreasonable absent an exception)
- United States v. Cervantes, 703 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.) (government bears burden to show warrantless search/seizure exception)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (Supreme Court discussion of exigent-circumstances exception)
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (warrant requirement evaluated under totality of circumstances)
- United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, 768 F.3d 464 (6th Cir.) (warrantless animal seizures justified in severe health/safety conditions)
- San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose, 402 F.3d 962 (9th Cir.) (qualified immunity and clearly established law)
- James Daniel Good Real Property v. United States, 510 U.S. 43 (pre-deprivation hearings not required when exigent circumstances present)
- Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass'n, 452 U.S. 264 (statutory procedure adequacy under due process)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for what process is due)