Reasoner v. City of Pittsburg Police Department, 3:18-cv-07674

Background

Plaintiff Larry Reasoner (35% owner of Harbor Street Investors, LLC) lived on and operated a storage/vehicle property in Pittsburg, CA; City issued land-use notices and multiple administrative citations from 2017 onward.
Lt. Roderick DuPont (code enforcement) repeatedly entered/inspected the property, allegedly harassed Reasoner (including anti‑gay remarks), photographed the site, and issued escalating citations.
The City obtained a nuisance abatement warrant (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1822.50 et seq.), posted it Dec. 18, 2017, and executed abatement Dec. 19–21; officers directed seizure/removal of trailers, vehicles, storage containers, and other personal property, and Reasoner was involuntarily taken for a 5150 psychiatric hold.
Plaintiff alleges seizure and destruction of property outside the warrant’s scope, lack of notice/means to reclaim property, denial of pre/post‑deprivation process, retaliatory and discriminatory enforcement (based on sexual orientation), and continuing harassment; he pleads §1983 claims (due process, Fourth Amendment, equal protection, First Amendment retaliation), Monell claims against the City, and negligence against the towing company.
Defendants (City, various officials including Chief Addington, Assistant City Manager Evans, former City Manager Sbranti, DuPont, officers and community service specialists) moved to dismiss/strike on multiple grounds; the court granted in part and denied in part, with leave to amend on several points.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to seek injunctive relief to remove abatement lien	Reasoner seeks injunction to remove cost‑of‑abatement lien affecting property where he lived/part‑owned	He lacks standing because Harbor Street (the LLC) — not Reasoner individually — owns the property	Dismissed for lack of standing as to lien claim (Rule 12(b)(1))
Claims premised on third‑party injuries (e.g., Lee’s arrest; relatives’ parking tickets)	Third‑party incidents are relevant to pattern of harassment and discrimination	Defendants say Reasoner lacks standing to assert others’ injuries and move to strike	Court declined to strike; allegations may be probative of harassment/discrimination (denied)
Sufficiency of pleading and use of generic references to “Defendants” / identity of actions by each defendant	Allegations describe constitutional violations by defendants present at execution and City policymakers	Defendants argue complaint is conclusory, often cites statutes, and fails to connect specific acts to particular defendants or policymaking authority	Court allowed claims to proceed in part but ordered Reasoner to plead specific facts tying each named defendant to alleged acts; statute recitals not struck (claims survive but must be clarified)
Municipal (Monell) liability / final policymaker and ratification theory	City liable for policies/customs and ratification (esp. actions and inactions by Chief Addington, City Council; Evans and Sbranti as possible policymakers)	Defendants contend Monell allegations are conclusory, rely on vicarious liability, and fail to identify final policymakers	Court found plausible Monell liability as to Addington and City Council ratification; Monell claims survive in part but plaintiff must identify specific final policymakers and link acts to policy (leave to amend)
Fourth Amendment — unlawful seizure/destruction of property during abatement	Seizures exceeded warrant scope; warrant lacked particularity; property destroyed without return/notice	Defendants emphasize warrant-based authority and claim lack of specific factual pleading against many individual defendants	Court held plaintiff plausibly alleged unlawful seizure claims; denied dismissal of individual actors present at execution but required clearer, defendant‑specific factual allegations
Equal protection / discriminatory motive (sexual orientation)	DuPont’s anti‑gay remarks motivated selective enforcement, citations, and power shutoff	Defendants argue insufficient factual allegations and that many claims rely on speculation; ownership limits some claims	Court found discrimination allegations plausible and allowed equal protection claim to proceed (but required clearer linkage of acts to named defendants)
Official‑capacity claims against individual defendants	Plaintiff maintained both individual and official‑capacity claims as pleading convention	Defendants sought dismissal as redundant because the City is sued	Official‑capacity claims dismissed with prejudice as redundant of the suit against the City
Claims against Evans and Sbranti individually	Plaintiff alleges they were informed of harassment and failed to act (ratification/Monell)	Defendants argue lack of facts tying them to discrete constitutional violations	Court granted dismissal of their official‑capacity claims but allowed individual‑capacity claims to proceed only with leave to amend to plead plausible, specific allegations against them

Key Cases Cited

Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (municipal liability when policy or final policymaker causes constitutional violation)
Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (single decision by a final policymaker can constitute municipal policy)
City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (municipal liability for failure to train requires deliberate indifference)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (conclusory allegations insufficient)
City of Los Angeles v. Patel, 135 S. Ct. 2443 (warrantless administrative searches are presumptively unreasonable)
United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (seizure of personal property requires particularized warrant)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
Nieves v. Bartlett, 139 S. Ct. 1715 (First Amendment retaliation and probable cause interplay)