Jones v. Tulare Cnty.
| Decision Date | 01 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:15-cv-01779-EPG |
| Parties | WENDY JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TULARE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO PLAINTIFF JONES,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND AS TO PLAINTIFF FABRICIUS;
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF FABRICIUS THIRTY DAYS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT;
This case concerns two plaintiffs, Wendy Jones and William Fabricius, both of whom had animals seized and subsequently declared "vicious" by Tulare County, California officials. Plaintiffs challenged the seizure in various administrative and state court proceedings. Those proceedings upheld the finding that Plaintiff Jones' dog was vicious. Plaintiff Jones declined to appeal her adverse state court judgment to a state appellate review. In contrast, the administrative proceedings ultimately reversed the finding that Plaintiff Fabricius' dogs were vicious and permitted Plaintiff Fabricius to obtain return of his animals upon compliance with Tulare Code health and safety codes. Plaintiff Fabricius also filed a state court action, whose outcome is unknown to this Court.
Plaintiffs filed a combined lawsuit in federal court, challenging various actions regarding their animals as unconstitutional under various provisions and asking for damages and return of their animals. Plaintiffs have sued twenty-four defendants under all eleven causes of action.
Now before this Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit and request for sanctions, which argued in part that this Court's adjudication is barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because it is an impermissible attempt to appeal a state court proceeding in federal court. Defendants also claim that Plaintiffs should be sanctioned for misleading the Court.
Plaintiffs Wendy Jones, William Fabricius and Brian Jones filed their original complaint in this case on November 24, 2015. (ECF No. 1) Although Plaintiffs are represented by an attorney, Christine Louise Garcia, they moved to proceed in forma pauperis, which was granted. (ECF No. 8). Plaintiff Brian Jones voluntarily dismissed the case on May 16, 2016, (ECF No. 18), and Wendy Jones and William Fabricius ("Plaintiffs") remained as defendants.
The First Amended Complaint ("FAC") was filed on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 17.) It names the following twenty-four (24) defendants: Tulare County ("TC"), California, Tulare County Sheriff's Office, Tulare County Animal Control ("TC AC"), Tulare County Animal Control Officer ("TC ACO") Paul Grenseman, TC ACO Oren Hartley, TC ACO Jeffrey Lewis, TC ACO Larry Hernandez, TC ACO Carothers, TC ACO Lutz, TC ACO Director Dirkson, TC Deputy Sheriff Sergeant Torres, Sheriff Deputy Yandell, Sheriff Deputy Young, Sergeant Wallace, and Doe Defendants 1-10 ("Defendants").
Defendants responded to the FAC by filing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on July 5, 2016, arguing, among other things, that the case was frivolous and was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. (ECF No. 34.) At the same time, the defendants filed request for judicial notice of certain facts related tothe underlying administrative and state court proceedings concerning this case pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (ECF No. 33.) On August 1, 2016, the defendants filed a motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11(b). (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on August 2, 2016 (ECF No. 38), and an opposition to the motion for sanctions on August 22, 2016 (ECF No. 41). Replies in support of the motions to dismiss and for sanctions were filed by the defendants on August 26, 2016. (ECF Nos. 42-43.) The Court held a motion hearing on both pending motions on October 7, 2016. (ECF No. 50.)
The FAC contains two sets of factual allegations regarding completely separate proceedings involving the seizure of animals in Tulare County.
One set of factual allegations pertains to Wendy Jones and her dog, Clyde, and the other pertains to William Fabricius and his dogs. Both sets of allegations describe a series of incidents and interactions between the plaintiffs and Tulare County officials concerning dogs that were seized and initially found to be vicious animals (although that finding appears to have been reversed as to Mr. Fabricius' animals).
A. Plaintiff Wendy Jones
On October 28, 2014, Jones' grandson, a toddler, was injured by a dog bite from Clyde, described by the plaintiffs as a "family companion animal," in the Jones' residence in Tulare County, California. The following day, the animal was quarantined at the request of TCAC officer Hartley pending the outcome of a vicious animal hearing. On October 30, a California Child Protective Services agent came to the Jones' home to follow up on the dog bite incident. Jones agreed that she would kennel the dog whenever the baby was in the home.
A Tulare County HHSA vicious animal hearing occurred before hearing officer Agnello on November 13, 2014. Jones thereafter voiced concerns regarding the hearing procedure and qualifications of the hearing officers to HHSA financial director Timothy Lutz. A couple days later, Jones received notice that the November 13 vicious animal hearing was invalidated and would be rescheduled. The rescheduled hearing occurred in early December before hearing officer Dale R. Bruder, an attorney. It was held that Clyde was vicious and should be euthanized.
On December 12, 2014, Jones appealed the Tulare County HHSA judgment finding that Clyde was vicious. The appeal hearing took place before hearing officer Hornburg on December 23, 2014. The appeal was denied on December 31, 2014, and the judgment that Clyde was vicious and should be euthanized was upheld.
In a series of events that became the subject of local news media coverage, Clyde disappeared from the custody of TCAC on January 4, 2015 shortly before he was set to be euthanized.
The FAC mentions that on January 9, 2015, Jones filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") § 1094.5. It does not include any further information about the state court proceedings.
Mr. Fabricius is a landowner and resident of Tulare County, California. In 2013, Fabricius' Tulare County land was zoned for 50 quadrupeds, meaning animals with four feet such as dogs or sheep. On April 27, 2013, a Tulare County Animal Control ("TCAC") officer by the name of Jeffrey Lewis entered Fabricius' land without a warrant intending to seize eight of Fabricius' black dogs. Fabricius asked Lewis to leave his property and Lewis complied. Lewis called for the assistance of the Tulare County Sheriff's Office ("TCSO") and reentered Fabricius' property. Assisted by TCSO police officer McLean, the eight black dogs were seized while Fabricius was detained on the property in handcuffs for over two hours. Frabricius watched as Lewis tranquilized his dogs and dragged them by their neck into his vehicle. All eight dogs were subsequently euthanized.
The next incident occurred on October 17, 2013, when ranchers John and Matt Floyd reported to Tulare County officials that they witnessed Fabricius' dogs in vicinity of down (i.e. disabled or deceased) calves. An abatement/inspection and animal seizure warrant for approximately 25 dogs was obtained by Tulare County officials and signed by a state court judge on October 21, 2013. The following day, four TCAC officers and three TCSO police officers entered Fabricius' property and seized approximately 25 dogs. Fabricius requested a copy of thesupporting affidavit to the search and seizure warrant, but was told that he would receive it at a later time.
Fabricius challenged the actions of the Tulare County officials by filing an appeal with Health and Human Services Agency ("HHSA") of Tulare County. Three HHSA hearings concerning Frabricius' seized animals occurred before hearing officer Agnello on November 25, 2013, December 18, 2013, and January 15, 2014. Agnello denied return of the animals. Frabricius initiated another appeal of that judgment, which was heard by Tulare County hearing officer Thomas Hornburg on March 18, 2014. A subsequent appeal hearing was held on June 20, 2014. The 25 animals were ultimately euthanized by injection. (ECF No. 17, p. 10 ¶ 30.)
The FAC does not mention any state court filings involving Mr. Fabricius. The FAC also does not mention that an administrative appeal ultimately found that his dogs were not vicious and permitted Fabricius to request return of the dogs upon compliance with certain health codes.
Plaintiffs attempt to assert eleven causes of action:
To continue reading
Request your trial