152 F. Supp. 3d 1269
E.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Edward Warkentine and Daniel Tankersley owned five Mendota, CA parcels alleged to be public nuisances; City code enforcement initiated abatement and removal of personal property from those parcels.
- May–Nov 2010: City mailed multiple nuisance and administrative hearing notices to addresses on the county roll (mostly to Warkentine); Tankersley received some notices belatedly or not at all because his deeds and mailing address were recorded after the roll used.
- November 16, 2010 administrative hearing before City Manager/ H.O. Kristal Chojnacki; Chojnacki issued an Abatement Decision ordering removal of junk and inoperative vehicles and recording Orders of Abatement. Plaintiffs did not comply.
- Sept 23, 2011: warrantless abatement of an unfenced parcel (APN 013-152-27s) resulted in removal of property by a towing company. April 9–20, 2012: inspection warrant (signed April 4) posted and used to abate four fenced parcels; some seized items exceeded the warrant’s described items and removals included items from locked structures.
- City contracted with towing defendants who took possession of removed items; City did not pay or require storage and gave no written notice explaining how owners could recover personal property. Plaintiffs claim over $1.5M in losses.
- Procedural posture: cross-motions for summary judgment. Court: grants in part and denies in part — several claims survive (Fourth Amendment seizures, due process), others (takings, equal protection) dismissed; some individual officers dismissed; qualified immunity and Monell issues reserved for some defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4th Amendment — warrantless entry/seizure of unfenced parcel (APN 013-152-27s) | Entry and seizure without warrant violated Fourth Amendment; seizure of personal property was unreasonable | Parcel was open field/no reasonable expectation of privacy; abatement process and exigent danger to children justified action | Entry/search: Defendants entitled to summary judgment (open fields). Seizure: disputed — cannot grant summary judgment for defendants; seizure claim survives for APN 013-152-27s |
| 4th Amendment — fenced parcels: validity & scope of inspection warrant | Warrant invalid (facial defects, misrepresentations, lack particularity, undated) and abatement exceeded warrant scope (removed items beyond described property, entered locked sheds) | Warrant and affidavit identified properties; affidavit accompanied posting; warrant vested discretion to abate listed and similar items | Warrant valid in form except for date/effective-period issue (warrant effective ≤14 days); genuine dispute whether abatement exceeded particularized scope — seizure/search claims for fenced parcels survive |
| Procedural due process — pre-deprivation notice & hearing | Notices were inadequate (didn't describe conditions or reach Tankersley); hearing notice and opportunity to be heard were deficient | City mailed notices to county roll and held hearing; Plaintiffs attended and could submit evidence after hearing | Triable issues exist about adequacy of pre-deprivation notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard; summary judgment denied on pre-deprivation due process |
| Procedural due process — post-deprivation notice & recovery | City failed to notify how to reclaim seized property before destruction/donation; forfeiture without reclamation hearing violated due process | Abatement notices and code authorize removal/disposal of vehicles; Plaintiffs should have known removal could lead to disposal | Court grants Plaintiffs partial summary judgment: City violated due process by destroying/donating personal property (other than the specifically-identified nine vehicles) without post-deprivation notice/hearing |
| Takings Clause (Fifth) | Donation/transfer of Plaintiffs’ property to private towing companies amounted to a taking for private use without just compensation | Removals were exercise of police power to abate nuisances; transfer to private parties does not make a taking if government purpose is legitimate | Takings claim dismissed: removal was police-power action; transfer to private actors did not, on these facts, establish a prohibited private-purpose taking |
| Equal Protection (class-of-one) | Plaintiffs treated differently than towing companies despite similar conduct | Plaintiffs are not similarly situated — towing defendants were licensed dismantlers/junk dealers; rational basis for distinctions | Equal protection claim dismissed: Plaintiffs failed to show the required high degree of similarity to towing defendants |
| Monell / municipal liability & failure-to-train | City policies/customs or delegation to City Manager caused constitutional violations; failure to train contributed | No deliberate indifference or established custom sufficient to impose municipal liability; City Manager lacked final policymaking authority | Failure-to-train claim dismissed for lack of deliberate indifference; a factual dispute remains whether City Manager’s de facto policymaking and a municipal custom/policy support Monell liability, so Monell issues survive summary judgment |
| Qualified immunity (individuals) | Officials violated clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights | Officials acted reasonably under municipal practice and reliance on warrant/abatement procedures | Police officer defendants entitled to qualified immunity (limited role). Chojnacki, Soria, Gosserand not entitled to immunity on seizure and due process issues where law was clearly established; some qualified immunity issues left unresolved due to briefing limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012) (defines seizures of property and examines constitutionality of forced removal of effects)
- Conner v. City of Santa Ana, 897 F.2d 1487 (9th Cir. 1990) (warrantless entry and seizure during nuisance abatement violated Fourth Amendment)
- Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984) (open fields doctrine; no reasonable expectation of privacy in open fields)
- Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523 (1967) (warrant requirement for administrative inspections absent exceptions)
- Schneider v. County of San Diego, 28 F.3d 89 (9th Cir. 1994) (abatement and destruction of property without adequate post-seizure process violates due process)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) (when mailed notice is returned unclaimed, government must take additional reasonable steps to notify before depriving property)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing test for procedural due process)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (municipal failure-to-train liability requires deliberate indifference)
- Stanford v. State of Tex., 379 U.S. 476 (1965) (Fourth Amendment particularity: warrants must particularly describe items to be seized)
- Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) (transfer to private parties does not necessarily invalidate a taking if government purpose is legitimate)