Wayne v. Sierra County

Summary

In these findings and recommendations, the Eastern District of California considers defendants’ motions to dismiss the pro se plaintiffs’ first amended complaint alleging ADA, civil rights, RICO, takings, and state-law claims arising from Sierra County’s permitting and inspection processes. The court recommends dismissal of the federal claims that were inadequately pleaded, including the RICO and takings claims, while allowing leave to amend a Title II ADA claim against Sierra County and certain due process or retaliation claims against county officials. It also recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissing several private and other defendants.

Holdings

1. The defendants did not establish that failure to pursue a state-law petition for writ of mandate or other administrative remedies barred all of plaintiffs' claims. Title II ADA claims do not require exhaustion, and the state-litigation requirement for Takings claims has been overruled.
2. The first amended complaint failed to allege a Fifth Amendment taking.
3. The first amended complaint failed to state civil RICO or RICO-conspiracy claims.
4. The first amended complaint failed to state claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment violations, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection or due process violations, or related conspiracy.
5. The first amended complaint failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
6. The first amended complaint failed to state a Title II ADA claim, but plaintiffs should receive leave to amend a Title II claim against the responsible public entity.
7. The court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state-law claims because all federal claims over which the court had original jurisdiction should be dismissed.
8. Plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a second amended complaint limited to a Title II ADA claim against the responsible public entity, § 1983 due process and retaliation claims against appropriate county officials, and related state-law claims; amendment of the other federal claims would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the first amended complaint stated a Fifth Amendment regulatory-takings claim.
2. Whether the complaint stated civil RICO and RICO-conspiracy claims based on alleged extortion, corruption, and civil-rights violations.
3. Whether the complaint stated claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 for First Amendment retaliation, Fourth Amendment searches, Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations, and civil-rights conspiracy.
4. Whether the complaint stated a Title II ADA claim based on denial of reasonable accommodations and disability discrimination.
5. Whether defendants established that plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative or state-law remedies.
6. Whether supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims should be declined after dismissal of the federal claims.
7. Whether plaintiffs should receive leave to amend and which defendants and claims could properly remain.

Disposition

other