Ou-Young v. Stone

Background

Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the County of Santa Clara, County Assessor Lawrence E. Stone, Senior Assessment Clerk Jeanette Tonini, and, originally, United States District Judge Edward J. Davila. The complaint asserted one claim labeled “Unreasonable Seizures” under the Fourth Amendment. The court previously dismissed Judge Davila without leave to amend, denied Ou-Young’s request to return the case to state court, and consolidated this case with a substantially similar action filed by Ou-Young.

Ou-Young alleged that after his spouse transferred her interest in their residence to him, the County assessor’s office unlawfully ended his homeowner’s exemption, increasing his property taxes, and refused to restore the exemption. The court treated the complaint as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that permits claims for constitutional violations by state or local government actors.

Motion to dismiss

The County and Stone moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Ou-Young did not file an opposition.

As to the County, the court held that a local government can be liable under § 1983 only when an official policy caused the constitutional injury. Ou-Young did not allege that the termination of his homeowner’s exemption resulted from a County policy, so he failed to state a claim against the County.

As to Stone, the court held that § 1983 liability requires the defendant’s personal participation in the alleged violation and does not permit liability merely because of a supervisory position. Ou-Young alleged only, in a conclusory statement, that Stone conspired to violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The court found that allegation insufficient and held that Ou-Young failed to state a claim against Stone.

The court also discussed the Tax Injunction Act, a federal statute generally barring federal district courts from stopping the assessment or collection of state taxes when the state provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. The court stated that Ou-Young’s claim appeared to fall within that bar because it challenged the loss of a homeowner’s exemption and the resulting increase in property taxes. The court noted that Ou-Young had not alleged that he lacked an adequate state remedy.

Order

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the County and Stone’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court gave Ou-Young until February 19, 2020, to file an amended complaint. Any amendment was limited to his existing claim concerning termination of the homeowner’s exemption; adding new claims or parties required further permission from the court. The court stated that failing to amend by the deadline would result in dismissal of the action.

Tonini had not appeared, and the docket did not show that she had been served. The County and Stone represented that Tonini was deceased. The court ordered Ou-Young to show cause in writing by February 12, 2020, why the action should not be dismissed as to Tonini. The court also vacated the April 2, 2020 hearing and terminated the motion on the docket.