Vargas v. City of Hercules

Background

Manuel Vargas, representing himself, sued several entities and people, including the City of Hercules, its Police Department, and several employees. He challenged the towing of his car and previously argued that the City lacked authority to enforce the California Vehicle Code. The court granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss with prejudice, ruling that the City and its employees had authority to enforce the Code.

The court then ordered Vargas to explain why the rest of his case should not also be dismissed with prejudice. The remaining defendants identified in the order included the City’s mayor, a towing company and its owners or operators, and a citation-processing company and its president.

Motion for reconsideration

Vargas asked the court to reconsider the earlier dismissal of the City and to allow him to present a new theory. He alleged that a City police officer improperly cited him for leaving his car on a highway for at least 72 consecutive hours, because he claimed the car had not been parked that long.

The court denied reconsideration. Under the court’s local rule, Vargas had to show a qualifying change in fact or law, newly emerged material facts or a change in law, or a failure by the court to consider material facts or controlling arguments previously presented. The court found that he had not shown that, with reasonable diligence, he could not have raised his new theory before the earlier dismissal. The City Defendants previously dismissed with prejudice therefore remained dismissed with prejudice.

Motion for leave to amend and show-cause order

The court discharged the show-cause order after Vargas stated that he could plead new claims against the towing company and its owners or operators, called the “Freeman Defendants” in the opinion. The proposed claims included alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Eighth Amendment, along with related state-law claims.

The court granted leave to amend because, although it identified possible weaknesses, it could not conclude at that stage that amendment would be entirely futile. The amended complaint could assert claims only against the Freeman Defendants. The claims and factual basis also had to remain within those stated in Vargas’s proposed first amended complaint. He could assert claims only on his own behalf, not as a class representative, because he was representing himself and had no lawyer of record.

The court also identified several concerns without resolving the proposed claims on their merits. It noted that Vargas might lack standing to seek forward-looking relief based only on a past injury. It stated that the Ninth Circuit had rejected a claimed right to a hearing before a city tows an automobile. It further stated that federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Freeman Defendants were questionable because those defendants were private actors and such claims generally require action under color of state law.

Disposition

The court discharged the order to show cause, denied the motion to reconsider, and granted the motion for leave to amend as to the Freeman Defendants only. Vargas was ordered to file the amended complaint by February 11, 2022. The court warned that if he did not file it on time, the Clerk would automatically dismiss the remainder of the case with prejudice and close the file.