Emberton v. San Francisco City Government

Background

Mihal Emberton sued San Francisco City Government after city agencies issued notices concerning a fence, trellis, arbor, pergola, gas line, and permit applications relating to property that Emberton appears to own and use as her residence. The lawsuit asserted numerous federal and state claims, including constitutional claims, discrimination claims, fraud, breach of contract, extortion, and alleged violations of city codes and policies. The City removed the case from San Francisco Superior Court and moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. That procedure tests whether the pleaded claims are legally sufficient, accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

Judicial Notice and Younger Doctrine

The court took judicial notice of five public documents referenced in the complaint, but it did not accept as true disputed facts contained in those documents. The City also argued that the court should abstain under the Younger doctrine, which can require a federal court to avoid interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The court rejected that argument because the record did not show either a state proceeding involving enforcement of court orders or a sufficiently formal, quasi-criminal enforcement action. The notices and permit-related processes had not resulted in a proceeding before a hearing officer, court, or zoning board based on the information presented.

Constitutional and Civil-Rights Claims

The complaint did not expressly cite 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute commonly used to seek relief for constitutional violations by state or local actors. The court nevertheless interpreted Emberton’s constitutional claims as arising under that statute.

The court found that Emberton had not plausibly pleaded a Fourth Amendment violation. Observing conditions readily visible from a public street generally does not require a warrant, and the alleged code-enforcement decisions did not amount to the meaningful interference with property required for a constitutional seizure. The court also found that the complaint did not adequately plead an equal-protection “class-of-one” claim because it did not allege facts showing that the City intentionally directed enforcement at Emberton or that the different treatment lacked a rational basis. The due-process claims also failed because Emberton did not identify a constitutionally protected property interest. The court granted the City’s motion as to the constitutional claims, without prejudice, and allowed Emberton to amend. It stated that an amended complaint would need to identify a City policy or policies that violated her constitutional rights.

The court granted the City’s motion as to Emberton’s Title II claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, without prejudice, and allowed amendment. Emberton had not alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin, and she had not alleged a covered public accommodation. The court also granted the motion as to the claim under 31 U.S.C. § 6711(a), without prejudice, and allowed amendment because Emberton had not alleged discrimination on a basis listed in that statute.

Other Federal Claims

The court granted the City’s motion as to Emberton’s claim under the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because the treaty does not create a private right of action enforceable in federal court. The court granted the motion without leave to amend based on futility.

The court dismissed Emberton’s claim under 18 U.S.C. § 242 because that criminal statute does not provide a basis for a private civil claim, and private individuals cannot initiate federal criminal prosecutions. The court dismissed that claim without leave to amend based on futility.

State-Law Claims and Disposition

The court did not decide the City’s arguments concerning the state-law claims, including claims for breach of contract, fraud, extortion, violations of the California Bane Act and Unruh Act, and alleged violations of San Francisco codes. It deferred those issues because it was unclear whether Emberton could state a federal claim, and the court identified ripeness and comity concerns.

The court’s conclusion granted the City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the federal claims and deferred decision on the motion as to the state claims. It granted Emberton leave to amend the constitutional, Title II, and 31 U.S.C. § 6711(a) claims, with an amended complaint due by March 15, 2023. Judge Thomas S. Hixson signed the order.