Vincent Pastore-v-County of Santa Cruz

Background

Vincent Pastore alleged that Santa Cruz County and County employees inspected two parcels, issued abatement orders, confiscated personal property, destroyed medical-marijuana plants, pursued code-enforcement actions, and denied permits related to pumping water from a permitted well. He claimed that these actions were retaliatory because he had previously sued the County, treated his properties differently from other parcels, deprived him of property without compensation, denied him due process, and constituted trespass and conversion.

Pastore’s second amended complaint asserted six claims: retaliation for petitioning the government under the First Amendment; unequal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment; a taking under the Fifth Amendment; substantive and procedural due process violations under the Fourteenth Amendment; trespass; and conversion. The court treated the federal constitutional claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute that allows claims against state or local actors for violations of federal rights.

Court’s analysis

Retaliation claim

The court held that Pastore did not plausibly allege a substantial causal relationship between his 1998 and 2008 lawsuits against the County and the County’s 2014 code-enforcement actions. The court noted the substantial time gaps, the lack of allegations that the County opposed his right to sue, and the absence of facts explaining why the County would have acted in 2014 because of those earlier lawsuits. The court therefore dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim without leave to amend, finding further amendment would be futile.

Equal-protection claim

Pastore brought a “class-of-one” equal-protection claim, alleging that the County treated his properties differently from six other parcels. The court found that the alleged comparison properties were not described as similar to Pastore’s properties in all material respects. In particular, the allegations did not address several alleged violations involving water pumping, solar panels, batteries, and wiring, and the allegation about similar zoning restrictions was too general. The court dismissed this claim without leave to amend because it had previously been dismissed for the same deficiency.

Takings claim

The court dismissed the takings claim to the extent it was based on property confiscated by the County or on anticipated future permit denials, without leave to amend. As to the alleged denials of electrical and solar permits, the court found that the complaint did not adequately state when the applications and denials occurred, did not allege a final decision by the County, and did not allege that Pastore had sought compensation through an available formal procedure. These are requirements related to the claim’s timeliness and ripeness, meaning whether the dispute was sufficiently final and ready for judicial review.

The court dismissed the permit-denial portion of the takings claim with leave to amend one final time. Any amendment was limited to facts about the dates of the relevant permit applications and denials, whether the County had reached a final decision, and Pastore’s efforts to seek compensation.

Due-process claim

The court did not reconsider Pastore’s substantive due-process claim because it had previously dismissed that claim without leave to amend. The court also dismissed the procedural due-process claim without leave to amend. Pastore had been allowed to add facts about a procedural defect in the administrative hearings concerning the abatement orders, but the new allegation about a possible conflict involving the person who presided over a separate appeal did not address whether he received notice and a meaningful hearing regarding the abatement actions.

State-law claims and judicial notice

The court granted Defendants’ request for judicial notice of eight government and court documents, while clarifying that judicial notice of the documents did not establish disputed facts within them.

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case. It dismissed Pastore’s state constitutional, trespass, and conversion claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The order states that these claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila ordered: