444 F. App'x 156
9th Cir.2011Background
- Jensens appeal a district court grant of summary judgment for Sonoma County on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims arising from a hearing to abate uses of 50 Sonoma Mountain Road, a Diverse Agricultural zoned property.
- County determined the property violated county zoning ordinances and held a hearing to abate specified unlawful uses.
- The Jensens argued res judicata/claim preclusion barred relief, but the court rejected this because they sought a writ of mandate under California CCP §1094.5.
- The district court held the relevant ordinance not unconstitutionally vague, with §26-08-020 detailing permitted uses in the zone.
- The court rejected the Jensens’ claims of due process, equal protection, Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, and related procedural issues in light of the ordinance, enforcement rationales, and record evidence, concluding summary judgment for the County was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of the zoning ordinance | Jensen argues the ordinance is vague and not sufficiently detailed. | County contends the ordinance is clear when read with the broader zoning scheme. | Not unconstitutionally vague; the ordinance is sufficiently definite. |
| Equal protection/substantive due process | Jensen asserts lack of rational basis for complaint-driven enforcement and vehicle-storage distinctions. | County asserts a rational basis exists for enforcement approach and storage distinctions based on environmental concerns. | County had a rational basis; no substantive due process violation. |
| Fourth Amendment compliance | Order to schedule an inspection constitutes an unlawful search/seizure. | No search or seizure occurred; inspection requirement is a reasonable follow-on to zoning violation. | No Fourth Amendment violation; order reasonable. |
| First Amendment petition and due process penalties | Penalty and hearing process penalized seeking/redressing grievances; due process concerns. | Penalty sheet provided parameters, and hearing afforded; no basis for First/ due process violation. | Claims lack support; district court proper in dismissing them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turning Point, Inc. v. City of Caldwell, 74 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 1996) (helps define administrative zoning interpretations and reasonable expectations)
- SeaRiver Mar. Fin. Holdings, Inc. v. Mineta, 309 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2002) (any rational basis may suffice for equal protection analysis)
- FCC v. Beach Commc’ns, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational basis review standard for equal protection)
- Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) (identifiable class and rational basis concepts in due process/equal protection)
- Richardson v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 124 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1997) (due process requires legitimate governmental reasons for adverse actions)
- Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande, 17 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1994) (due process review framework for governmental decisions)
- Hansen Bros. Enters., Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 1996) (grandfathered use doctrine in land-use regulation)
- Sanchez v. County of San Diego, 464 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2006) (reasonableness of administrative inspection requirements)
- G.H. Love, Inc. v. Fleming, 161 F.2d 726 (9th Cir. 1947) (historical context for administrative search/inspection authority)
- Rosenbaum v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, 484 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2007) (police/enforcement resource allocation rationales in enforcement decisions)