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
- 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.
- The complaint failed to state an excessive-fines claim because a private towing-company charge is not a constitutionally actionable fine.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that the impoundment of Crago’s vehicles was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether charges imposed by private towing companies constituted an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.
- Whether the alleged failure to allow Crago to present evidence at a tow hearing stated a procedural due-process claim.
- Whether the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against persons acting under color of state law.
- 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 PDFLoading document…