Summary
The document is an order vacating prior findings and recommendations and recommending denial of a pro se plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order. The plaintiff challenged the traffic stop and impoundment of his unregistered vehicle by the California Highway Patrol, asserting Fourth Amendment, procedural due process, and constitutional right-to-travel claims. The court found that plaintiff had not shown serious questions on the merits or irreparable harm.
Holdings
- Williams failed to show serious questions going to the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim because he did not demonstrate that he could move the unregistered vehicle without continuing to violate state registration laws or that an alternative means of removing it was available.
- Williams failed to show serious questions going to the merits of his procedural due process claim on the current record.
- Williams failed to show serious questions going to the merits of his right-to-travel claim because burdens on a single mode of transportation do not implicate the fundamental right to interstate travel, and there is no fundamental right to drive.
- Williams failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because his alleged financial injury was ordinarily compensable by damages, he did not intend to operate the vehicle unless he prevailed on his legal theory, and the vehicle had reportedly been released to a third party.
Questions Presented
- Whether Williams showed serious questions going to the merits of his Fourth Amendment claim that the impoundment of his unregistered vehicle was an unreasonable warrantless seizure.
- Whether Williams showed serious questions going to the merits of his procedural due process claim based on the handling of the administrative hearing concerning the impounded vehicle.
- Whether vehicle impoundment and state registration requirements violated Williams's constitutional right to travel.
- Whether Williams demonstrated likely irreparable harm warranting a temporary restraining order.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (21)
- Garcia v. Google, Inc., 786 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2015)(followed)
- Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011)(followed)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996)(followed)
- Sandoval v. County of Sonoma, 912 F.3d 509, 516 (9th Cir. 2019)(followed)
- Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 865 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Leslie v. City of Sand City, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1125-26 (N.D. Cal. 2009)(followed)
- Constitution of U.S. v. Southwick, 2008 WL 5111144, at *2-3 (D. Or. Dec. 1, 2008)(followed)
- United States v. Cartwright, 630 F.3d 610, 616 (7th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)(followed)
- Orloff v. Cleland, 708 F.2d 372, 378-79 (9th Cir. 1983)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 21.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…