Lake County >> A federal court has given another nod toward the legitimacy of plaintiffs” claims that various county officials violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The case stems from raid allegedly by Lake County on their medical marijuana grow sites in the summer and fall of 2014.
In the court”s response to defendants” motions to dismiss claims, it ruled only two of the county”s 13 objections should be partially granted. The county had motioned the case in its entirety be dismissed, but the plaintiffs” remaining claims were found to be appropriately addressed and “decidedly” satisfied legal requirements to proceed onto litigation.
In denying dismissal of claims, the court did not rule the defendants are guilty of the alleged violation of rights. It only took into consideration whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief can be legally granted. But when the defendants” arguments against the plaintiffs” allegations heavily rely on legal technicalities, the court”s acknowledgement of the plaintiff”s legal sufficiency in many of their claims could be of significance as the case nears a potential trial.
In its order, the court found plaintiffs had sufficiently argued the alleged individual involvement of each named defendant, including former sheriff Frank Rivero, Lake County Undersheriff Chris Macedo, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lt. Loren Freeman and Lake County Community Development Director Richard Coel.
As Lake County is also named as party to the suit, the court did agree with the defendants in that county staff should not also be sued in their official capacities for the sake of redundancy. However, the official-capacity suit against Freeman will be allowed as the state of California is not a party to the suit.
Defendants had also claimed the plaintiffs shouldn”t be litigating in federal court when adequate opportunities for redress are available in the state court system. The court responded by clarifying that due process violations can be remedied at the state level when deprivation of rights is unforeseeable, random and unauthorized. But in this case, a federal court is appropriate since the plaintiffs” contention is that defendants acted pursuant to an established policy of depriving plaintiffs of their property (Measure N) without an pre-deprivation hearing and shows the challenged conduct as authorized, the erroneous deprivation foreseeable and a pre-deprivation process practicable, the order states.
The court also found plaintiffs met a heightened pleading standard in claiming the defendants conspired to deprive them of their constitutional rights as the factual allegations of their complaint “are sufficient to infer a meeting or the minds and resulting conspiracy” from the development of Measure N to its implementation.
Additionally, the plaintiffs” pleading of a Bane Act claim, which alleges an individual interfered with someone”s peaceable exercise of their rights with threats or intimidation, was also found to be sufficient as some of the plaintiffs allege they were threatened with arrest when asking for a search warrant from some defendants.
A claim for trespass was also found to be adequate with plaintiffs alleging they were subject to Lake County Sheriff”s Office deputies cutting their locks and ignoring “No Trespassing” signs.
Finally, Freeman”s argument that the plaintiffs can only allege a Fourth Amendment violation was found to be inadequate by the court. Substantive due process violations may be rejected where a more specific constitutional provision applies, but that does not preclude a plaintiff from bringing both procedural claims, the court stated.
Before discovery and depositions begin, a case management conference is scheduled to begin March 2 where both parties will have the opportunity to settle outside of trial.
