Borges v. County of Mendocino

Background

Ann Marie Borges and Chris Gurr purchased an eleven-acre farm in Ukiah, California, intending to cultivate medical cannabis. They formed Goose Head Valley Farms and applied for a Mendocino County permit under a provision governing relocation of cultivation from an origin site to a different destination site. The application was conditionally approved, and the plaintiffs began cultivation.

The plaintiffs alleged that County agriculture official Diane Curry treated them as qualified for the relocation permit. They also alleged that Sue Anzilotti, a neighbor, reported suspected water diversion to California Department of Fish and Wildlife personnel; that agents later searched the property, handcuffed the plaintiffs, and seized or destroyed marijuana plants and other property; and that County officials later prevented delivery of a permit Curry had approved. The County ultimately denied the application, stating that the plaintiffs had not shown prior and current cultivation on the same parcel.

The plaintiffs further alleged that Anzilotti worked with neighbors and County officials to create an “opt-out” zoning process that targeted their property and prevented cannabis cultivation. Their First Amended Complaint asserted four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against persons acting under state law for violations of federal rights: (1) unequal treatment of the plaintiffs as a “class of one” by the County; (2) an equal-protection conspiracy involving the County and several defendants; (3) violation of substantive due process by the County; and (4) a related substantive-due-process conspiracy.

Due-Process Claims

The court held that the plaintiffs did not have a federally protected property interest in cultivating medical marijuana. Although California law regulated and taxed cannabis activity, federal law still prohibited marijuana cultivation. Because the plaintiffs could not establish the federally protected interest required for their due-process claims, the court granted the motions to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action without leave to amend. The fourth cause of action also failed because it depended on the underlying constitutional claim.

Equal-Protection Claim Against the County

The court denied dismissal of the first cause of action. A “class-of-one” equal-protection claim alleges that a government treated a particular person differently from similarly situated people without a rational basis. The plaintiffs alleged that Curry, whom they identified as the County’s final decisionmaker for interpreting and implementing the ordinance, determined that they met the relocation requirements; that they were the only agricultural applicants who met those requirements but were denied permits; and that the County’s rezoning process specifically targeted them.

At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and concluded that these allegations were enough to state a plausible claim. The court declined to resolve the parties’ disputes about the meaning of the County ordinance or whether the County’s interpretation deserved deference.

Conspiracy Claim Against Anzilotti

The court granted Anzilotti’s motion to dismiss the second cause of action but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. The court concluded that Anzilotti’s alleged complaints to County officials and other government agencies, including her efforts to influence zoning and report suspected water diversion, were petitioning activities protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. That doctrine generally protects efforts to ask government bodies to take action, even when the efforts allegedly include false statements.

The court also found that the complaint’s allegations connecting Anzilotti to the alleged interference with the permit process were insufficiently specific. It did not allege a direct connection between Anzilotti and Deputy County Counsel Matthew Kiedrowski’s actions, and the allegation that Anzilotti and a Fish and Wildlife agent used a false water-diversion allegation as a pretext was conclusory. The court nevertheless allowed one final opportunity to amend this claim.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The first cause of action may proceed. The second cause of action, as alleged against Anzilotti, was dismissed with leave to amend. The third and fourth causes of action were dismissed without leave to amend. Any amended second cause of action had to be filed by December 23, 2020.