Thames v. Mendocino Coast Humane Society
- William Orrick
- 3:25-cv-09341
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Chadley Wayne Thames v. Mendocino Coast Humane Society, Judge Orrick denied emergency dog-return relief and left the complaint’s adequacy for later review.
Chadley Wayne Thames is affected because the court denied his request for an emergency order requiring the return of Kiah Bixsby Grey Wolf. The City defendants and the Mendocino Coast Humane Society are affected because the complaint remains subject to further review, including the City defendants’ pending motion to dismiss.
What happened
Chadley Wayne Thames v. Mendocino Coast Humane Society concerns Thames’s request for the return of his emotional support dog, Kiah Bixsby Grey Wolf. He said the City of Fort Bragg and its Police Department seized his vehicle and dog, and that the Humane Society refused to return the dog.
The court said Kiah was no longer in the defendants’ possession, may have been adopted, and had been removed from Thames’s custody more than a year before he sought emergency relief. Thames also alleged that he was denied a required property hearing and asserted constitutional, disability, and state-law claims.
Judge William H. Orrick denied the temporary restraining order. He said the delay, uncertainty about whether the defendants could return Kiah, and questions about the claims’ strength prevented emergency relief. The court did not decide whether Thames stated an actionable claim against the City; that issue was set for a later hearing, and the complaint could not be dismissed at screening as frivolous or malicious.
The detailed version
- Thames v. Mendocino Coast Humane Society · No. 3:25-cv-09341
- William Orrick
- Dec. 10, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Chadley Wayne Thames, representing himself, filed a second motion for a temporary restraining order seeking the return of his emotional support dog, Kiah Bixsby Grey Wolf. The opinion states that Kiah was removed from Thames’s custody in July 2024 after Thames was charged under California Penal Code § 597.1(A), a misdemeanor concerning keeping an animal without proper care. The charge was dismissed in October 2024. Thames filed this case and sought emergency relief on October 30, 2025.
The opinion says Thames did not allege that Kiah was still in any defendant’s possession. A recent filing indicated that Kiah was no longer in the Mendocino Coast Humane Society’s possession and may have been adopted by someone else.
Claims and Screening
The complaint names two groups of defendants: Fort Bragg and its Police Department, referred to collectively as the City, and the Mendocino Coast Humane Society. Thames alleges that the City illegally seized his vehicle and Kiah and did not provide a property hearing. He alleges that the Humane Society is holding Kiah and refused to return the dog.
Thames asserts that the defendants violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. He also asserts state-law claims for conversion, wrongful withholding of property, and infliction of emotional distress.
Because Thames filed without paying the filing fee and without a lawyer, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Screening allows dismissal of a case that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from a defendant legally immune from that relief. The court said Thames’s allegations that he was denied a post-deprivation hearing under California Penal Code § 597.1(f) meant the complaint could not be dismissed as frivolous or malicious. The court did not decide whether the complaint adequately stated an actionable claim against the City.
Temporary Restraining Order
A temporary restraining order is emergency relief used to preserve the existing situation and prevent an irreparable loss of rights before a final judgment. The court explained that Thames generally had to show a likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without emergency relief, that the balance of fairness favored him, and that an injunction would serve the public interest.
The court denied the motion. It relied on Thames’s delay in seeking emergency relief, the serious questions about what relief was available because Kiah was not alleged to be in the defendants’ custody, and questions about Thames’s likelihood of success. The court stated that the denial concerned emergency relief and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Other Pending Proceedings and Disposition
The City defendants had moved to dismiss the complaint. The court stated that the motion would be heard by videoconference and that the adequacy of the complaint and whether Thames stated an actionable claim against the City would be determined at that time. The opinion states that the hearing was set for January 14, 2025, and that Thames’s opposition was due December 22, 2025. The order expressly denied the temporary restraining order; it did not state a final disposition of the City defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.