Schneider v. Amador Cnty.
| Decision Date | 08 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:10-cv-3242-GEB-EFB PS,2:10-cv-3242-GEB-EFB PS |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, Plaintiff, v. AMADOR COUNTY; LINDA VAN VLECK; JOHN HAHN; SUSAN GRAIJILIVA; CARA AUGUSTINE, and DOES 3-40, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
This case, in which plaintiff is proceeding pro se, was referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). Defendants move to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and move to strike portions of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f)(2). Dckt. Nos. 44, 45. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Dckt. No. 47. For the reasons stated herein, the undersigned recommends that the motion to dismiss be granted.
Plaintiff filed a complaint on December 6, 2010 and a first amended complaint on December 27, 2010, which defendants moved to dismiss. Dckt. Nos. 1, 11, 16. The motion to dismiss was granted and plaintiff's first amended complaint was dismissed in its entirety, with leave to amend plaintiff's federal claims only. Dckt. Nos. 32, 36.
On March 2, 2012, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging thirteen causes of action, including both federal and state law claims, against defendants Amador County (the "County"), Linda Van Vleck (a County code enforcement officer), John Hahn (County counsel), Susan Graijiliva (County land use division head), Cara Augustine (identity not pled), and Does 3 through 40 (anonymous complaining witnesses and other involved County officials). Second Am. Compl. ("SAC"), Dckt. No. 43. Specifically, plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) a denial of "Equal Protection of Laws," asserted against the County, all four County officials, and Does 2-24; (2) a violation of "First Amendment [protected] Speech," asserted against all defendants; (3) a purported claim entitled "Equitable Estoppel, Laches," asserted against the County, all four County officials, and Does 2-24; (4) a "Lack of due process, under Fifth or in the alternative Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments," asserted against the County, all four County officials, and Does 2-24; (5) "Declaratory Relief-Unconstitutionally Vague and Overbroad Ordinance," asserted against the County, all four County officials, and Does 2-24; (6) a purported claim labeled "Unlawful regulation of Commerce, Ultra Vires actions," asserted against the County, Van Vleck, Hahn, Graijiliva, and Does 2-24; (7) "Failure to Train or Supervise, Negligent Training and Supervision," asserted against the County, Van Vleck, Graijiliva, and Does 2-24; (8) "Gross Negligence, Deliberate Indifference and Failure to investigate," asserted against the County, Van Vleck, Hahn, Graijiliva, and Does 2-24; (9) "Civil Conspiracy and/or collusion under color of law to violate Constitutional rights," asserted against all defendants except Augustine; (10) "Denial of Due Process Hearing," against the County, Van Vleck, Hahn, Graijiliva, and Does 2-24; (11) "Malicious prosecution and/or Abuse of Process," against the County, Van Vleck, Hahn, Graijiliva, and Does 2-24; (12) a purported claim under California Civil Code §§ 51.7, 52.1(b) a claim plaintiff styled as "Freedom from Violence," asserted against Van Vleck, Hahn, Graijiliva, and Does 2-40; and (13) a claim labeled as "(Private Actors unlawful actions under Color of Law) Harassment, Conspiracy to preventPlaintiff's enjoyment of rights and liberties under State and Federal laws," asserted against Does 25-40. See generally id.
Despite the length and number of claims asserted in his second amended complaint, plaintiff's allegations appear to be based primarily on defendants' actions regarding two County nuisance ordinances prohibiting over 200 square feet of "junk" from being stored outside on plaintiff's property, which plaintiff contends are unconstitutional. See generally id. (citing Amador County ordinances 19.08.360 and 19.48.130). According to the second amended complaint, plaintiff has received several letters from the County regarding plaintiff's noncompliance with these ordinances. Those letters directed plaintiff to remove or place in enclosed storage many of the items on plaintiff's property, including aircraft parts and other assorted items. Id. ¶¶ 43, 51, 59. Plaintiff received these letters off and on beginning in the fall of 2003 and continuing through the fall of 2010. Id. ¶¶ 20-61. During this time, plaintiff had several interactions with County officials regarding this issue and he wrote several letters "of protest to Defendants in 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, as well as recent letters from October 2011 and 2012 . . . ." Id. ¶¶ 20-61, 70 n.20.
On March 16, 2004, plaintiff wrote letters to various County officials requesting that records concerning his property be released to him disclosing the identities of anonymous neighbors who had complained that his property was in violation of the ordinances so he could obtain restraining orders and civilly prosecute them. Id. ¶¶ 33-36. The County denied his request. Id. ¶¶ 34-35. On March 23 or 24, 2004, plaintiff sent an email contesting this denial to defendant Hahn, County counsel, who in response, "stated/threatened via email (and possibly via phone) that all the laws/code violations in dispute (for which Plaintiff was being accused of violating) could 'be prosecuted criminally as well as civilly' and that the County's position would not change 'unless, of course, a court determines otherwise.'" Id. ¶ 35.
Plaintiff continued to have interactions with County actors until April 6, 2006, when plaintiff discovered attached to his property a notice of the County's intention to abate thenuisance pursuant to the junk ordinances. Id. ¶¶ 36-44. This notice identified the "[e]xcessive accumulation of junk stored outdoors" on plaintiff's property as a public nuisance and notified plaintiff of his right to a hearing prior to any County action provided plaintiff made a written request, which he did. Id. ¶¶ 44-46, Exs. 7, 8. However, the abatement hearing was "postponed . . . to a later date if needed" after County officials met with plaintiff on his property on May 3, 2006, and plaintiff subsequently moved certain items to the back of his property. Id. ¶¶ 48-49. Plaintiff asserts that as a result of this meeting and the abatement notice, which required him to remove the "junk" from his property by May 6, 2006, plaintiff relocated airplane wings to the back of his property at "unneeded and great expense." Id. ¶ 51, Ex. 7. He also sold several "still usable" items at a substantial loss, including a "rare and unique International Harvester Class C Tractor with air brakes (which Plaintiff never would have sold . . .)." Id. ¶ 51.
During the spring of 2007, plaintiff received additional letters from the County notifying him that he was again in violation of County ordinances. Id. ¶¶ 53-54. Plaintiff continued to request a hearing. Id. ¶¶ 52-54. In June of 2007, plaintiff constructed a display in his front yard "all in retaliation, protest, and objection to County Defendants' letter received a week earlier, and the anonymous Does actions [of lodging complaints against him with the County]." Id. ¶ 55. Plaintiff describes his display as an "outdoor kitchen and living room display with a written sign in large black letters and white background" that was "clearly directed" at County officials. Id. ¶¶ 55, 59. Plaintiff does not state in the second amended complaint what the sign's message was, but it was spray painted in "foot tall large letters" so as to be "easily read" from the nearby road. Id. ¶ 71.
Plaintiff asserts that a sheriff's officer responded to a complaint regarding his display and "further harass[ed] Plaintiff under Color of law to take down the sign, and remove the display." Id. ¶ 56. Plaintiff removed his sign and later the rest of the display. Id. ¶ 73. Plaintiff claims that his display was purposefully "clearly illegal" under the County's interpretation of the "junk" ordinances as it was comprised of items stored outside and measured over 200 square feet. Id.¶ 71. It is plaintiff's wish to construct additional displays, but he has not done so because he believes that a little over a week after the incident with the sheriff, County officials in an "undercover vehicle" took photos of his display and then approached the County District Attorney concerning the potential criminal prosecution of plaintiff for the display, and he thus fears potential arrest. Id. ¶¶ 56-57, 73.
Following this incident, plaintiff believed the ordinance issues to have been resolved until October 28, 2010, when plaintiff again received a letter from the County concerning ordinance violations on his property. Id. ¶¶ 59-60. On November 21, 2010, plaintiff again requested access to County records regarding code enforcement, third party complaints against him, and other materials. Id. ¶¶ 124, 126. The County denied the request. Id. Plaintiff then filed the instant action in December 2010. Id. ¶ 60.
Defendants Amador County, Van Vleck, Hahn, and Graijiliva1 now move to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and move to strike portions of plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f)(2).2 Dckt. Nos. 44, 45. Defendants raise several arguments in support of the motion which focus mainly on: the lack of a final County action for this court to review; the running of the statute of limitations; the lack of the type of County action required to support plaintiff's constitutionalclaims; plaintiff's pleading of defensive doctrines as a claim; and plaintiff's re-pleading of state law claims previously dismissed without leave to amend. See generally Dckt. No. 45.
To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial