Blickenstaff v. City of Hayward

Background

Evan William Blickenstaff alleged that the City of Hayward and six Hayward police officers—Daniel Morgan, Alicia Romero, Roberto Gonzalez, Tommie Clayton, Ryan Cantrell, and Garett Wagner—violated his civil rights and other laws when they towed a 1989 Travelcraft Econoline 350 motor home in which he was living. The motor home was parked on a private road in Hayward after the property owner had withdrawn permission for Blickenstaff to park it on other private property.

According to the First Amended Complaint, officers placed a yellow sticker on the motor home referring to local and state laws concerning abandoned or inoperable vehicles. Blickenstaff alleged that the motor home was operable and not abandoned, that the sticker did not adequately explain the removal process or hearing rights, and that he was not allowed to demonstrate that the motor home was operable before it was towed on October 21, 2020. He also alleged that officers threatened him with arrest if he did not move away from the motor home. He later tried to obtain a hearing and recover the vehicle but did not get it back.

The First Amended Complaint asserted five claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims for constitutional violations by officials acting under governmental authority. The claims relied on the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and alleged a conspiracy to violate those rights. The complaint also asserted a claim under the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, a municipal-liability claim against the City, and a conversion claim.

Legal Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but it need not accept conclusory allegations or unreasonable inferences. A complaint must allege enough facts to make liability plausible rather than merely possible.

Fourth Amendment

The court treated the impoundment of the motor home as a seizure. Because the seizure occurred without a warrant, the defendants had to show that an exception to the warrant requirement applied. They relied on the community-caretaking exception and the plain-view doctrine.

The court dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim based on the community-caretaking exception. That exception can permit police to impound vehicles when necessary to protect public safety, traffic flow, or property from vandalism or theft, but its application depends on the facts and does not automatically authorize every vehicle removal allowed by state or local law.

The court found that the sticker’s references to Hayward Municipal Code section 4-1.20 and California Vehicle Code section 22660 placed the removal in a public-safety context. The court also considered that the motor home had been parked on a private road with more than a dozen other vehicles for more than three weeks, and that officers had observed it there on multiple occasions. Those allegations established a preliminary basis for applying the exception. The Fourth Amendment claim was therefore DISMISSED. The court did not decide the defendants’ arguments about the plain-view or open-fields doctrines, or qualified immunity.

Eighth Amendment

Blickenstaff appeared to challenge the permanent taking of the motor home as an excessive fine or punishment under the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The court explained that the clause limits government punishment that is grossly disproportionate to the underlying offense.

The court found that neither side adequately addressed whether impounding a vehicle is a punishment covered by the Excessive Fines Clause, whether the impoundment was excessive, or how the motor home’s use as a residence affected the analysis. The complaint also did not appear to allege that the defendants imposed fines connected to the impoundment; it referred only to fines imposed by Jack James. The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment claim without prejudice to Blickenstaff establishing, through additional facts or briefing, that the claim was plausible.

Fourteenth Amendment

Blickenstaff asserted procedural-due-process claims based on the lack of adequate notice before the tow and the lack of a hearing afterward. Procedural due process generally requires a protected property interest, a government deprivation of that interest, and inadequate process.

For the pre-tow claim, the court held that the sticker gave reasonable notice. The sticker stated that the vehicle had been declared abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperable; listed steps that could be taken to comply with the law; warned that the City would remove the vehicle if those steps were not completed; stated that an abatement notice would follow by mail; and provided a telephone number for more information. Because the sticker was placed on the motor home where the defendants allegedly knew Blickenstaff lived, and the motor home remained there for 11 days to three weeks before the tow, the court concluded that he had reasonable notice and an opportunity to object. The pre-seizure Fourteenth Amendment claim was DISMISSED.

For the post-tow claim, the court explained that California law generally requires an opportunity for a prompt hearing after a public agency directs that a vehicle be stored, but provides exceptions for vehicles removed under the abandoned-vehicle abatement program and certain abandoned vehicles valued at $500 or less. The complaint alleged, without supporting facts, that the motor home was worth more than $500. It also alleged that the vehicle was removed under California Vehicle Code section 22660, which falls within the abatement-program exception. The court therefore held that Blickenstaff had not adequately alleged that a post-tow hearing was required. The post-seizure Fourteenth Amendment claim was DISMISSED.

Other Claims

The court dismissed the conspiracy, Bane Act, and municipal-liability claims because each depended on an adequately pleaded constitutional violation, which the court found lacking in the complaint.

The court also dismissed the conversion claim. Under California law, conversion is the wrongful exercise of control over another person’s property. The court held that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that the defendants took the motor home through a wrongful act; instead, the allegations indicated that they appeared to have acted under the applicable law.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint was GRANTED with leave to amend. An amended complaint was due by February 10, 2023. The court also DENIED Blickenstaff’s administrative motion to reopen submission so he could present a police report.