Soares v. City of Monterey

Background

Paul F. Soares filed the action against the City of Monterey and City employees Randy Sweet and Irma Camacho. He alleged nine claims, including due-process violations, conspiracy to violate his constitutional rights, false representation of a police officer, and personal injury. The application addressed only his first claim: that Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment by unlawfully searching his property.

Soares alleged that the City’s police department searched his property in 2021 while enforcing a zoning ordinance. He alleged that the warrant authorized a search of only one residence, but officers searched multiple units and removed door hinges to enter private rooms and apartments. He also alleged that Sweet and Camacho entered the property without a warrant on multiple occasions from 2016 through 2024 to determine whether short-term tenants were present.

Legal standard

A temporary restraining order is short-term relief intended to preserve the existing situation and prevent irreparable harm until a hearing can occur. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the applicant must show four things: likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without relief, a balance of hardships favoring relief, and that the injunction would serve the public interest. For an order issued without notice to the opposing party, the rule also requires specific facts showing that immediate and irreparable harm will occur before the other side can be heard, along with a written certification concerning notice.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Soares failed to establish the four required factors. It focused first on whether he was likely to succeed on his Fourth Amendment claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim under that statute requires conduct by a person acting under state law that deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right.

The court identified two problems with the claim as pleaded. First, the claim based on the 2021 search was likely barred by the statute of limitations. Section 1983 claims use California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. Because Soares filed his complaint on August 14, 2024, the court found that the 2021 claim was filed well beyond that period as currently pleaded. The court noted that Soares might raise arguments involving the discovery rule or equitable tolling, but it found that he had not shown likely success on the claim in its current form.

Second, the court found that the allegations about continuous searches from 2016 through 2024 did not provide enough detail to satisfy the federal pleading requirement. Soares needed to describe each alleged unlawful search with enough specificity to give Defendants fair notice and show how each search violated the Fourth Amendment. The court said the complaint did not make clear how many searches occurred, when each one occurred, or what part of the property Defendants entered during each search.

Because Soares did not show likely success, the court did not address the other three required factors. It additionally observed that, without sufficient facts about recent and ongoing searches, it could not find that Soares would suffer irreparable harm without immediate relief.

Disposition

The court DENIED Soares’s application for a temporary restraining order. This order addressed the request for temporary relief; the opinion did not state that it resolved Soares’s underlying Fourth Amendment claim or his other claims.