Cupp v. Smith

Background

Ronald Cupp brought a civil-rights action against Sonoma County, Andrew Smith, Tyra Harrington, and other individuals. He alleged that defendants violated the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and due-process rights through an alleged February 15, 2019 trespass and search of his property. He also asserted state-law claims involving trespass, land-patent infringement, slander of title, and excessive fines.

On July 20, 2020, an unspecified Sonoma County Superior Court judge issued an inspection warrant authorizing Sonoma County to search the interior and exterior of Cupp’s property and related items, including vehicles and structures. The warrant authorized reasonable force, execution without the owner or occupant present, and shortened notice. Ten days later, Andrew Smith, Tyra Harrington, and Sonoma County inspector Todd Hoffman entered the property, posted citations concerning alleged construction, zoning, cannabis-use, and building violations, and discussed having the property’s electricity shut off.

Cupp then sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. He specifically asked the federal court to prevent defendants from directing PG&E to terminate his power. Before deciding the motion, the court ordered defendants not to direct PG&E to terminate Cupp’s electricity; defendants complied with that interim order.

Legal standard

The court applied the same standard to both requested forms of relief. Cupp had to show that he was likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, that the balance of hardships favored him, and that an injunction would serve the public interest. Alternatively, serious questions about the merits could suffice only if the other requirements were also met.

Court’s analysis

The court found that Cupp had not shown a likelihood of success on either claim it considered for preliminary relief.

For the unlawful-entry claim based on the February 15, 2019 incident, Cupp offered no evidence that Smith entered the property on that date. Hoffman’s evidence instead indicated that Smith observed violations from the property’s right of way and later posted notices. The court found Hoffman’s statement credible and concluded that an aerial photograph suggested Smith could have viewed the structures from alongside the road.

For the due-process claim, evidence showed that Cupp had received an opportunity for a hearing concerning the abatement proceedings. Cupp had written to Sonoma County asking that a scheduled hearing be rescheduled. The court noted that the hearing had not yet been rescheduled, but defendants’ counsel represented that it was in the queue to be scheduled. The court concluded that Cupp had not shown a likelihood of success on this claim.

The court also found no clear showing of likely irreparable harm. It rejected Cupp’s argument that defendants would conduct future unconstitutional searches because the July 2020 entry had been authorized by a warrant. It found his argument about harm to the property’s alleged “land patent” benefits unexplained. The court recognized that losing utilities could cause harm but found that Cupp had not shown why that harm would be irreparable.

Finally, the court found that Cupp had not presented evidence or argument showing that the balance of hardships favored him or that the requested relief served the public interest. Evidence submitted by defendants indicated potentially dangerous electrical wiring and gas piping in a cannabis barn, creating a possible risk of fire or explosion. The court concluded that the public interest and balance of equities favored denying preliminary relief.

Disposition

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied Cupp’s application for a temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction. The court did not decide Sonoma County’s separate argument for dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine, stating that the pending motion to dismiss was the proper procedure for addressing that issue.