Frost v. City of Sioux City

• Decision Date: 18 September 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16-CV-4107-LRR,16-CV-4107-LRR
• Parties: JENNIFER FROST et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

JENNIFER FROST et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA et al., Defendants.

No. 16-CV-4107-LRR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

September 18, 2017

ORDER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... 2

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................. 2

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION .......................... 3

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................. 3

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................ 4

A. The Ordinance ..................................... 4

B. Plaintiffs ......................................... 6

1. Kali Myers ................................... 6

2. Jennifer Frost ................................. 7

3. Jane Doe .................................... 7

C. Plaintiffs' Claims ................................... 7

VI. ANALYSIS ............................................ 8

A. Standing of Plaintiffs ................................ 8

1. Parties' arguments .............................. 8

2. Applicable law ................................. 8

3. Injury in fact ................................. 9 a. Subject to ordinance ........................ 9

b. Dogs are property ......................... 11

4. Favorably redress the injury ....................... 13

5. Ripeness ................................... 14

6. Standing established ............................ 15

B. Procedural Due Process Claim Standing ................... 15

C. Mootness of Kali Myers' Claims ........................ 16

D. Failure to State a Claim for Which Relief Can Be Granted ....... 17

1. Substantive due process .......................... 17

a. Applicable law ........................... 17

b. Analysis ............................... 18

2. Equal protection .............................. 20

3. Vagueness .................................. 21

a. Parties' arguments ........................ 21

b. Applicable law ........................... 21

c. Analysis ............................... 22

E. Abstention ....................................... 23

1. Parties' arguments ............................. 23

2. Applicable law ................................ 24

3. Analysis .................................... 24

VII. CONCLUSION ........................................ 25

I. INTRODUCTION

The matter before the court is Defendants City of Sioux City, Iowa ("City"), Robert Padmore and Cindy Rarrat's "Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Abstain" ("Motion") (docket no. 23).

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint (docket no. 18) asserting that the City had violated their rights under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On December 30, 2016, Defendants filed the Motion. On January 13, 2017, Plaintiffs filed a Resistance (docket no. 26). Defendants have not filed a Reply and the time for doing so has passed. Defendants have requested oral argument, but the court finds that oral argument isunnecessary. The Motion is fully submitted and ready for decision.

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims because they arise under the United States Constitution. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.").

IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for dismissal on the basis of "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). "To establish constitutional standing, the 'person invoking the power of a federal court must' 'prove that he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.'" Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Sveen, 776 F.3d 547, 553 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Hollingsworth v. Perry, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013)). When, as here, a party presents a facial challenge to standing, the court "must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party." United States v. Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist., 569 F.3d 829, 834 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975)).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for dismissal on the basis of "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter . . . to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); accord B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 569 F.3d 383, 387 (8th Cir. 2009). A claim satisfies the plausibility standard "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for themisconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

Although a plaintiff need not provide "detailed" facts in support of his or her allegations, the "short and plain statement" requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) "demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555); see also Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) ("Specific facts are not necessary [under Rule 8(a)(2)]."). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "Where the allegations show on the face of the complaint [that] there is some insuperable bar to relief, dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate." Benton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 524 F.3d 866, 870 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Parnes v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 122 F.3d 539, 546 (8th Cir. 1997)).

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Accepting all factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiffs, the relevant facts are as follows:

A. The Ordinance

In 2009, the City enacted Chapter 7.10, entitled "Pit Bulls Prohibited" ("Ordinance"). See Sioux City, Iowa Code of Ordinances § 7.10. Under the Ordinance, it is "unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell within the City . . . any pit bull." Id. § 7.10.030. The Ordinance defines a pit bull as:

[A]ny dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of beingpredominantly of the breeds of Staffordshire Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier as set forth in the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the aforementioned breeds.

Id. § 7.10.010.

Under the Ordinance, the "poundmaster of the City . . . is authorized to immediately impound any pit bull found in the City . . . that does not fall within one of the exceptions contained in [§] 7.10.040." Id. § 7.10.050.¹ If the owner of a dog impounded under the ordinance "disputes the classification of the animal as a pit bull . . . the owner of the pit bull may file a written request for a hearing with the City Manager or the City Manager's designee within seven . . . calendar days after impoundment." Id. "The poundmaster shall bear the burden of proof to show the dog is a pit bull, as defined in [§] 7.10.010, by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence." Id. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee acts as the hearing officer. Id. "At the conclusion of the hearing or within seven days thereafter the hearing officer shall render a written decision. The findings of the [hearing officer] shall be conclusive." Id. An owner who disputes this decision "may notify the City Manager's office" within seven days. Id. "The owner will then be issued a Municipal Infraction citation with a court date listed." Id.

After a final decision is made, the dog will be transferred or destroyed unless the "owner of the pit bull produces evidence sufficient by the poundmaster that the pit bull is to be permanently taken out of Sioux City, and the owner pays the cost of impoundment." Id. The Ordinance also provides for potential fines or jail time for violators. Id. § 1.04.100.B. Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs are individuals residing in Sioux City, Iowa, at all relevant times.

1. Kali Myers

In October 2012, Myers obtained her dog, Tink. Tink was a mixed-breed, identified by her veterinarian as a boxer mix. Amended Complaint ¶ 21. Tink never bit, harmed or otherwise acted aggressively toward any person. Id. ¶ 22. In mid-2013, Tink escaped from Myers's residence and was picked up by animal control. Id. ¶ 23. Animal control released Tink back to Myers without any indication that Tink may be subject to the Ordinance. Id. ¶ 24. In Autumn of 2015, while being watched by Myers's father, Tink again escaped and was picked up by animal control. Id. ¶ 25.

When Myers's father attempted to recover Tink, he was informed the dog was subject to the Ordinance. Id. ¶ 26. Myers provided animal control with documentation stating that Tink was a boxer mix, but animal control refused to release Tink. Id. ¶ 27. Myers could not find a home for Tink outside of City limits and, as such, animal control informed Myers that Tink would be euthanized. Id. ¶ 29. Myers was never informed that she could contest animal control's decision, and she never did contest its decision. Id. ¶ 31.

In March 2016, Myers obtained Radar, a mixed-breed dog. Id. ¶ 32. Radar has not bitten, threatened or otherwise acted aggressively...