Sinsukthaworn v. City of Calistoga

Background

Kochagorn Sinsukthaworn and James Hopkins, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the County of Napa, the City of Napa, several Napa County and city law-enforcement entities, the California Highway Patrol, and Officer Frank Walsh. They alleged that law-enforcement agents executed a search warrant on property where they were growing cannabis, destroyed or confiscated 2,555 cannabis plants, and confiscated firearms and ammunition. They alleged that Officer Walsh obtained the warrant through judicial deception and decided to destroy or confiscate the cannabis before inspecting the property.

The complaint asserted ten causes of action: three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; four claims under California Civil Code § 52.1; trespass; conversion of cannabis; and conversion of firearms. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages. They alleged that each plaintiff presented a tort claim to Napa County, but did not allege that they presented claims to the California Highway Patrol, the State of California, the City of Napa, the City of St. Helena, or the City of Calistoga.

The California Highway Patrol, the City of Napa, the City of St. Helena, and the City of Calistoga filed motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motions.

State-Law Claims

The court held that the claims under California Civil Code § 52.1 and the tort claims were subject to California’s Government Claims Act. That law generally requires a plaintiff seeking money or damages from a public entity to present a claim to the specific entity before filing suit.

The court concluded that presenting claims to Napa County did not satisfy the requirement for claims against the separate moving entities. It therefore granted the California Highway Patrol, the City of Napa, the City of St. Helena, and the City of Calistoga’s motions to dismiss the state-law claims to the extent the plaintiffs sought monetary damages. The court stated that these deficiencies could possibly be corrected by amendment.

Federal Claims

The federal claims were brought under § 1983, which permits claims against a person acting under state law for violating rights secured by the Constitution or federal law.

As to the California Highway Patrol, the court held that the agency was not a “person” subject to suit under § 1983. It therefore concluded that the federal claims against the California Highway Patrol could not be saved by amendment and dismissed those claims with prejudice.

As to St. Helena and Calistoga, the court rejected the cities’ request to take judicial notice that the Napa Special Investigations Bureau was unrelated to them. The court said the submitted website material did not conclusively contradict the plaintiffs’ allegation that the Bureau was a multi-agency task force and acted as an agent of the cities.

The court nevertheless held that the complaint did not allege enough specific facts to support § 1983 claims against St. Helena or Calistoga. The plaintiffs generally alleged that all defendants authorized or ratified the conduct, failed to train officers, or maintained an unconstitutional policy or custom. They did not identify a specific policy or custom, a specific training failure, facts showing that either city authorized or ratified the search or destruction, or prior violations that put either city on notice of a constitutional risk. The court granted St. Helena and Calistoga’s motions to dismiss the federal claims.

The court also rejected additional arguments by the cities that state-law immunity barred the § 1983 claims and that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause could not apply. The court noted that the complaint’s Fourteenth Amendment claim was not necessarily duplicative of the Fourth Amendment claim because the complaint also alleged violations of procedural requirements in the Lake County Code.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted the motions to dismiss. It dismissed Counts I through III with prejudice as to the California Highway Patrol and without prejudice and with leave to amend as to the cities of St. Helena and Calistoga. It dismissed Counts IV through X against all moving defendants to the extent the plaintiffs sought monetary damages, without prejudice and with leave to amend.

The court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by October 21, 2022. It directed them to identify each claim and the factual allegations supporting it, and warned that the amended complaint had to be complete in itself. The court vacated the scheduled hearing.