15 F.4th 895
9th Cir.2021Background
- The Platts loaned their car to their son; after a traffic stop revealed marijuana, Deputy County Attorney Jason Moore directed the car seized under Arizona civil forfeiture law and mailed a Notice of Pending Forfeiture.
- Arizona law then offered two mutually exclusive routes within 30 days: (1) file a court claim, or (2) file a petition for remission/mitigation with the attorney for the state; petitioners could not file a court claim until the state attorney issued a written declaration.
- The Platts filed a petition for remission; Moore unilaterally deemed the petition defective (without notifying them or allowing correction), applied for an uncontested forfeiture (which requires only probable cause), and represented no timely petition or claim had been filed.
- The Platts filed a court claim and this civil-rights suit; two weeks later Moore withdrew the uncontested forfeiture application and the car was returned after ~5 months.
- The district court dismissed all claims (including on Arizona’s notice-of-claim statute and other merits grounds); the Ninth Circuit reversed in part (reviving certain Arizona-law nominal damages claims) and affirmed in part, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.R.S. § 12-821.01 (pre‑suit notice of claim) bars nominal‑damages claims under Arizona law | Nominal damages are essentially declaratory in purpose and therefore exempt from the notice requirement; filing a claim for $1 would not implicate the statute’s budgeting/settlement purposes | The statute covers claims for money damages and requires strict pre‑suit notice even if only nominal damages are sought | Court predicted Arizona would exempt nominal damages claims from § 12-821.01 and reversed dismissal on that ground |
| Whether the forfeiture scheme permitted a prosecutor to unilaterally deem a remission petition invalid (denying meaningful hearing before an unbiased adjudicator) — "biased adjudicator" claim | Moore’s undisclosed determination that the petition was untimely denied the Platts meaningful opportunity to be heard and shifted them into the lower‑standard uncontested procedure | The statutes can be construed to permit subsequent court review/allow the Platts to file a claim after Moore’s filing; no due‑process problem | On the pleadings, the scheme facially allowed the prosecutor to deny petitioners the protections of contested proceedings; the court reversed dismissal of the biased‑adjudicator claim |
| Whether the Navajo County Drug Task Force is amenable to suit (and whether biased‑enforcer claims may proceed against proper state officials) | Plaintiffs sought to sue the Task Force and also named Moore and Carlyon | Defendants argued the Task Force lacks capacity to be sued under Arizona law; official‑capacity defendants are state actors immune in federal § 1983 damages suits | The Task Force lacks capacity under Arizona law (dismissed); claims against Moore and Carlyon in their official capacities on Arizona due‑process grounds may proceed (district court should consider substitution/remand) |
| Whether the court should decide Arizona’s facial constitutional challenge (State cross‑appeal) | — | State asked for a ruling that the forfeiture scheme is facially constitutional | Ninth Circuit declined to issue an advisory/facial ruling (also noting statutory amendments and likely mootness) |
Key Cases Cited
- Martineau v. Maricopa Cnty., 86 P.3d 912 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004) (Arizona notice‑of‑claim statute does not apply to declaratory relief; used to assess application to nominal damages)
- State v. Mabery Ranch, Co., 165 P.3d 211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (extends Martineau reasoning to injunctive relief; statutory text requires a monetary estimate)
- Wohlstrom v. Buchanan, 884 P.2d 687 (Ariz. 1994) (uncontested forfeiture favored the State; forfeiture in uncontested proceedings is "virtually assured")
- Norriega v. Machado, 878 P.2d 1386 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994) (practical limits on intervening in forfeiture after an application is filed)
- Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (official‑capacity state officers are not "persons" under § 1983 for damages)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (procedural due‑process balancing test: meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (1978) (nominal damages available for procedural due‑process violations)
- Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 141 S. Ct. 792 (2021) (discussion of nominal damages as a historical vehicle for declaratory relief)
- Braillard v. Maricopa Cnty., 232 P.3d 1263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (entity capacity to be sued requires legislative authorization)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015) (permitting party substitution under Rule 21 in similar contexts)
- Polo v. Innoventions Int’l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2016) (remand principles where jurisdictional defects appear after removal)