Crago v. Sacramento County Towing Enforcement Supervisor

No. 2:25-cv-00086-DC-CKD PS (E.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2025) · United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · March 28, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-00086-DC-CKD PS

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants Mary Crago’s application to proceed in forma pauperis but dismisses her complaint for failure to state a claim. The court concludes that the allegations concerning vehicle impoundment, towing charges, and towing-company procedures do not plausibly establish violations of the Fourth Amendment, Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause, or due process. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file an amended complaint.

Holdings

  1. The complaint failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim because it did not allege facts plausibly showing that the impoundment was unreasonable or inconsistent with the community-caretaking function.
  2. The complaint failed to state an excessive-fines claim because a private towing-company charge is not a constitutionally actionable fine.
  3. The complaint failed to state a due-process claim because Crago challenged procedures employed by private towing companies and did not allege a deprivation attributable to a state actor.
  4. The complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not plausibly allege a violation of a constitutional or federal right by a person acting under color of state law.
  5. Leave to amend was appropriate because a pro se litigant is generally entitled to notice of pleading deficiencies and an opportunity to amend unless the deficiencies cannot be cured.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the impoundment of Crago’s vehicles was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
  2. Whether charges imposed by private towing companies constituted an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
  3. Whether the alleged failure to allow Crago to present evidence at a tow hearing stated a procedural due-process claim.
  4. Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against persons acting under color of state law.
  5. Whether Crago should be granted leave to amend after dismissal of the complaint.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (24)

  • Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989)(followed)
  • Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)(followed)
  • Western Mining Council v. Watt, 643 F.2d 618, 624 (9th Cir. 1981)(followed)
  • Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57, 570 (2007)(followed)
  • Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
  • Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988)(followed)
  • Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 61 (1992)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…