Soares v. City of Monterey

Background

Paul F. Soares, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Monterey. He alleged violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments based on citations concerning short-term rental units, citation notices allegedly sent to the wrong address, and searches of his property.

Soares alleged that he purchased a historical private residence in 1985 and that the property included short- and long-term rental units. The City changed its zoning rules in 1986 and adopted an ordinance in 1991 restricting short-term rentals, subject to an exception for properties classified as Visitor Accommodation Facilities. Soares alleged that his property should have received that classification and that it was protected by the ordinance’s grandfather clause until 1996. He also alleged that the City began enforcing the restrictions around 2016, issued citations in 2016–2017 and 2021–2024, and mailed citation notices to an incorrect address.

Soares further alleged that City code enforcers entered his property without a warrant between 2016 and 2024 and that, in 2021, the City’s police department searched multiple units even though the warrant allegedly authorized a search of only one residence. In July 2024, the City filed a state-court action seeking more than $45,000 in unpaid citation fees. Soares filed this federal action on August 14, 2024.

Soares later voluntarily dismissed several individual defendants and claims for conspiracy, neglect for preventing conspiracy, trespass, and false representation of a police officer. The City was the only remaining defendant, and the court did not address the dismissed defendants or claims.

Rule 12(b)(6) standard and statute of limitations

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to make a legal claim plausible. The court generally accepts factual allegations as true and reads a self-represented party’s pleading less strictly than a lawyer-drafted pleading, but the complaint still must give the defendant notice of what it allegedly did wrong.

Claims under § 1983 use California’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. The court held that claims based on conduct before August 14, 2022, were barred by that period. It considered Soares’s arguments that bankruptcy proceedings, the COVID-19 pandemic, and his alleged lack of notice of the zoning changes should extend the deadline. The court found those arguments insufficient on the allegations presented. It noted, however, that the limitations issue concerning the 2021–2024 citations might be affected by Soares’s allegation that he did not receive notice until July 2024 because the notices were mailed to the wrong address. The complaint did not clearly explain where the notices were sent, whether Soares learned of the citations through another source, or whether he had other information that should have prompted inquiry.

Fourth Amendment search claim

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment unlawful-search claim with leave to amend. It found that the alleged 2021 search was likely untimely and that the complaint did not provide enough specific information about any searches within the limitations period.

The court also held that the complaint did not adequately plead municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. Under that rule, a municipality is not liable under § 1983 merely because its employees allegedly violated the Constitution. The plaintiff must connect the violation to an official policy, a longstanding practice or custom, an act by an official with final policymaking authority, or ratification by such an official. The court found that Soares had not alleged facts establishing that connection. It allowed him to amend by identifying specific post–August 14, 2022, searches and explaining how the alleged search resulted from a City policy, custom, or practice.

Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim

The court held that a due-process claim under the Fifth Amendment could not proceed against the City because the Fifth Amendment’s due-process protection applies to the federal government. Because Soares was representing himself, the court construed the allegation as a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment instead.

Soares alleged that mailing the 2021–2024 citation notices to the wrong address deprived him of the opportunity to file a timely administrative appeal. The complaint also alleged that the 30-day appeal period had not begun because the citations had not been properly provided to him. The court found this contradictory and unclear: the allegations did not show what procedure was denied or how the City deprived Soares of due process. The court granted dismissal of this claim with leave to amend.

Eighth Amendment excessive-fines claim

The court also granted dismissal of the Eighth Amendment excessive-fines claim with leave to amend. The claim alleged that fines from 2016–2024 were excessive, but the complaint did not provide enough information to allow a factfinder to assess whether the fines were grossly disproportionate to the alleged violations. The court identified information that could be relevant, including the number of citations, the conduct underlying them, the amount of each fine, and any late penalties.

The court expressly did not decide whether the fines were actually excessive. It also rejected the City’s argument that the claim failed because Soares had not exhausted the City’s administrative appeal process. The court found that the authorities cited by the City did not establish a general exhaustion requirement for an Eighth Amendment excessive-fines claim.

Parallel state-court case and disposition

The court raised, without deciding, whether the related state-court action could require abstention, a stay, or dismissal of claims concerning the 2021–2024 citation fees. It directed the parties to address those issues in future filings if Soares filed an amended complaint.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Any amended complaint had to remove the voluntarily dismissed claims and former defendants and add facts addressing the deficiencies identified in the order. The deadline for amendment was June 5, 2025.