Silveria v. Marin County Sheriffs Department

Background

Bonnie Silveria, Sean Derning, and Elgio Limeta represented themselves in this case against the County of Marin, Sheriff Deputy Michael Thompson, the Marin County Sheriff’s Department, and Julia Barnes. The plaintiffs alleged that they were unhoused and sheltering along Binford Road in Marin County. They claimed that defendants seized and destroyed their belongings during cleanups, without just compensation, legally required storage, or a meaningful opportunity to retrieve the property.

The plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows people to seek relief for violations of federal constitutional rights by state or local officials. Their claims alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Derning also asserted a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, seeking an accommodation involving additional space for occupational therapy related to his hand injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and anxiety.

Property Claims

The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims based on the seizure and destruction of their belongings. The allegations concerned unabandoned, non-hazardous property, including drinking water, food-related items, a bike trailer, fencing, an awning, a gate, a refrigerator, and a cooking burner. The court explained that the Fourth Amendment requires a reasonable seizure and that the Fourteenth Amendment protects homeless persons’ unabandoned possessions as property. The court also noted that a warrantless seizure may still be reasonable if officials believe the property is abandoned, believe it poses an immediate health or safety threat, or hold it for return and notify the owner.

The court therefore denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims that defendants seized and destroyed property in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Defendants had stated that, if the court found a plausible claim, they conceded there was no legal authority allowing them to dispose of non-hazardous personal property within 90 days.

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment claim, with leave to amend. It reasoned that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause requires compensation for an otherwise lawful interference that qualifies as a taking. The plaintiffs instead alleged that defendants unlawfully seized and destroyed their property during a cleanup, which the court held was not actionable under the Fifth Amendment on the allegations presented.

Claim Concerning Pets

The court granted defendants’ motion as to the plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim concerning their dogs and dismissed that claim with leave to amend. The plaintiffs alleged that officials removed dog fences and shade structures, after which two dogs were hit by cars and died, and that other dogs remained at risk.

The court gave three reasons for its ruling. First, it held that the alleged loss of a pet under these circumstances was not legally cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, it held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged that defendants’ actions placed them in a more dangerous situation than they otherwise would have faced. Third, the court held that the allegations did not plausibly show deliberate indifference, meaning that defendants recognized an unreasonable risk and intended to expose the plaintiffs to it without regard to the consequences.

Americans with Disabilities Act Claim

The court dismissed Derning’s Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claim without leave to amend. The court assumed, without deciding, that Derning had met the threshold requirements for an ADA claim. It nevertheless held that his request for additional space to perform occupational therapy while remaining indefinitely on Binford Road was unreasonable as a matter of law, given the plaintiffs’ description of Binford Road as a narrow median next to fast-moving traffic.

Other Matters and Disposition

In a footnote, the court stated that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a claim against the County under Monell, the rule requiring a local government to have a policy, custom, or practice that was the moving force behind a constitutional violation. The opinion text does not separately state a specific disposition for that Monell issue beyond this statement.

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies by April 14, 2025. They may not add new claims or parties without a stipulation from defendants or leave of court. If they do not file an amended complaint by that date, the original complaint will remain operative and they will be treated as choosing to proceed on it. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and identified a free help desk for self-represented litigants who might qualify for volunteer counsel.