Cupp v. Smith et al, No. 4:2020cv03456 - Document 29 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING 20 APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton.(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2020)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RONALD CUPP, v. 9 10 Case No. 20-cv-03456-PJH Plaintiff, 8 ANDREW SMITH, et al., Defendants. 11 ORDER DENYING APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION United States District Court Northern District of California Re: Dkt. No. 20 12 Before the court is plaintiff Ronald Cupp’s (“plaintiff”) ex parte application for a 13 14 temporary restraining order and motion for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 20. Having read 15 the parties’ papers and carefully considered their argument and the relevant legal 16 authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby DENIES plaintiff’s requests. BACKGROUND 17 18 19 A. The Underlying Claims On May 21, 2020, plaintiff filed the instant civil rights action against defendant 20 County of Sonoma (“Sonoma County”), Andrew Smith (“Smith”), Tyra Harrington 21 (“Harrington”) (“defendants”), as well as other individuals not relevant to the instant 22 motion. Dkt. 1 (Compl.). In it, plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his Fourth 23 Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and certain due process rights in connection with their 24 alleged February 15, 2019 “trespass” and “search” of plaintiff’s property at 4640 Arlington 25 Avenue, Santa Rosa, California. Compl. ¶¶ 20-22. Plaintiff’s property comprises 4.33 26 acres of land and is “completely fenced in” with a “solid wood” fence. Dkt. 20-2 ¶¶ 3, 8. 27 28 Plaintiff’s due process deprivation claim stems from defendants maliciously denying plaintiff his request for an appeal of the citations issued by Sonoma County 1 following their February 15, 2019 visit. Id. ¶¶ 65-72. Plaintiff adds ancillary state law 2 claims for trespass, land patent infringement, slander of title, as well as excessive fines, 3 all of which arise from the February 15, 2019 visit. Id. ¶¶ 89-106. 4 B. On July 20, 2020, an unspecified judge of the Sonoma County Superior Court 5 United States District Court Northern District of California The July 30, 2020 Search 6 signed and issued an inspection warrant of plaintiff’s property pursuant to California Code 7 of Civil Procedure § 1822.50, et. seq. Dkt. 20-1 at 8. The warrant authorized Sonoma 8 County to search the “interior and exterior” of the premises and “all items on and 9 associated to” the property, including “the surrounding grounds . . . garages . . . [and] any 10 vehicles, trailers, or motor-homes present on the property.” Id. at 10. The warrant added 11 various endorsements authorizing the use of reasonable force for entry, id. at 13, its 12 execution in the absence of the owner or occupant, id. at 14, and shortened notice to 13 Cupp and other occupants, id.1 Ten days later, Smith, Harrington, and Todd Hoffman (an inspector with Sonoma 14 15 County, Dkt. 25-1 at ¶ 7) arrived at plaintiff’s property and “passed thru” [sic] his “solid 16 wood” fence. Dkt. 20-2 ¶ 8. Smith used “some sort of metal ram to bust in the doors and 17 bust the locks and door jambs.” Id. ¶ 9. Following the entry, Smith posted on plaintiff’s 18 property various citations concerning certain “construction(s) without permit,” Dkt. 20-1 at 19 1-2, 4, 7, “unlawful use/zoning violation(s),” id. at 3, “unlawful commercial cannabis use,” 20 id. at 5, and “dangerous building(s),” id. at 6. By a phone call from Harrington, plaintiff 21 learned about the search immediately before it occurred but was not present when Smith, 22 Hoffman, and Harrington conducted it. Dkt. 20-2 at ¶ 8. During the search, Smith stated 23 to someone living in a trailer on the property that he or she needed to leave and that 24 defendants “were going to get the PG&E power shut off.” Dkt. 20 at 7. 25 26 27 28 1 Shortly after filing their opposition, defendants filed an errata indicating that it is unclear whether the judge who signed the July 20, 2020 warrant was Assistant Presiding Judge Shelly Averill or the judge to whom defendants presented the inspection warrant, Presiding Judge Bradford DeMeo. Dkt. 28. This court cannot tell from the signature which judge signed it. To simplify, the court will not refer to the issuing judge by name. 2 On July 31, 2020, the day after the search, Hoffman filed a return of inspection 1 2 with the Sonoma County Superior Court. Dkt. 25-5. In his supporting declaration, 3 Hoffman details the various violations observed. Id. ¶ 4. Those violations include the 4 cultivation of over 450 cannabis plants, id. ¶ 4(B)(6), hazardous electrical work to 5 plaintiff’s barn, id. ¶ 4(C)(2), and a water heater powered by propane added to plaintiff’s 6 garage, id. ¶ 4(C)(7). That same day, Smith returned outside plaintiff’s property and 7 posted another citation. Dkt. 26.2 The court details other evidence proffered by the 8 parties as necessary in its analysis below. 9 C. On July 31, 2020, plaintiff filed the instant motion on an ex parte basis. In it, he 10 United States District Court Northern District of California The Instant Motion 11 seeks “protection and status quo” until the court can decide this action on the merits. Id. 12 at 7-8. Plaintiff expressly asked this court to order defendants not to direct PG&E to 13 terminate his power. Id. at 8. Within hours, the court issued its order denying plaintiff’s request to proceed on an 14 15 ex parte basis and setting a briefing schedule. Dkt. 21. The court also ordered 16 defendants to refrain from issuing any direction to third-party PG&E to terminate plaintiff’s 17 electricity until it resolves the instant motion. Id. at 3. They complied. Dkt. 25 ¶ 12. DISCUSSION 18 19 A. Legal Standard Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 provides federal courts with the authority to 20 21 issue temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)-(b). 22 Generally, the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and the 23 rights of the parties until a final judgment on the merits can be rendered, U.S. Philips 24 Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1094 (9th Cir. 2010), while the purpose of a 25 temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo before a preliminary injunction 26 27 28 2 The court did not allow plaintiff leave to file a reply and warns him against making such unauthorized filings in the future. In any event, the court has considered plaintiff’s reply and will detail it as necessary. 3 1 hearing may be held, Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters and Auto Truck 2 Drivers, 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974)). Requests for temporary restraining orders are 3 governed by the same legal standards that govern the issuance of a preliminary 4 injunction. Stuhlbarg Int'l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 5 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). An injunction is a matter of equitable discretion and is “an extraordinary remedy United States District Court Northern District of California 6 7 that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” 8 Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008); Munaf v. Geren, 553 9 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008). A preliminary injunction “should not be granted unless the 10 movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 11 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (per curiam). 12 “A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [1] he is likely to 13 succeed on the merits, that [2] he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 14 preliminary relief, that [3] the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that [4] an 15 injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. Alternatively, “‘serious 16 questions going to the merits’ and a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff 17 can support issuance of an injunction, assuming the other two elements of the Winter test 18 are also met.” All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011). 19 Stated differently, “’serious questions going to the merits’ and a balance of hardships that 20 tips sharply towards the plaintiff can support issuance of a preliminary injunction, so long 21 as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the 22 injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 1135; Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 23 869 F.3d 848, 856 (9th Cir. 2017). 24 B. Analysis 25 The court concludes that plaintiff failed to show that he is entitled to preliminary 26 injunctive relief. As analyzed below, plaintiff’s request fails under every Winters factor. 27 1. Plaintiff Failed to Show a Likelihood of Success on the Merits 28 To substantiate this factor, plaintiff analyzes the likelihood that he will succeed on 4 1 only (1) his Fourth Amendment claim for unlawful search premised upon the alleged 2 February 15, 2019 entry; and (2) his claim for deprivation of due process concerning his 3 denied request to appeal the citations issued after that visit. Dkt. 20 at 4-5. Below, the 4 court analyzes plaintiff’s likelihood of success on each claim in turn. 5 United States District Court Northern District of California 6 a. The Claim for Unlawful Entry Plaintiff failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim for 7 unlawful entry. As an initial matter, plaintiff did not present any evidence to support 8 finding that Smith, in fact, entered his property on February 15, 2019. To the contrary, 9 defendants proffered affirmative evidence showing that Smith did not do so. In his 10 declaration in support of the July 30, 2020 warrant, Hoffman states that in January 2019, 11 Smith “observed” from plaintiff’s property’s “right of way” numerous violations, including 12 “unpermitted construction/remodel of the primary residence, a barn, and a garage. . . . 13 [and] at least one of the structures [] being converted into an unpermitted dwelling unit.” 14 Dkt. 25-2 at 7-8. For context, Hoffman explains that Smith then ran a permit history 15 search of the property and “posted the notices to the property in February 2019.” Id. at 8. 16 The court finds Hoffman’s statement credible. Based on an aerial photo of 17 plaintiff’s property attached to Hoffman’s declaration in support of the July 20, 2020 18 warrant, Dkt. 25-2 at 26, it appears that Smith could have easily viewed the unauthorized 19 structures behind plaintiff’s wooden fence from alongside the road. Given the above, the 20 court concludes that plaintiff failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his 21 claim for unlawful entry. 22 23 b. The Claim for Deprivation of Due Process Plaintiff also failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim for 24 deprivation of due process. In a prior request for judicial notice, defendant proffered 25 evidence showing that plaintiff did receive the opportunity for a hearing for the notice of 26 abatement proceedings initiated against him in connection with the February 15, 2019 27 visit. Dkt. 10-3 at 2-4. On September 4, 2019, plaintiff sent a letter to Sonoma County’s 28 Code Enforcement Supervisor, Mark Franceschi, expressly stating that “I am in receipt of 5 1 your letter dated August 28, 2019 titled Notice of Abatement Hearing.” Dkt. 10-4 at 2. 2 In that letter, plaintiff goes on to explain that he is “not available at the end of this month 3 [September 2019] . . . Please reschedule for last part of October 2019.” Id. This letter 4 directly undermines plaintiff’s allegation that defendants “knew of [his] request for an 5 appeal . . . regarding the citations Smith caused and denied Cupp.” Compl. ¶ 67. United States District Court Northern District of California 6 While ten months to reschedule an administrative hearing is a long time, 7 defendants cite the October 2019 Kincade fires in the county, this litigation, and the 8 ongoing pandemic as exceptional circumstances that have prevented rescheduling that 9 hearing. Dkt. 26 at 5. Counsel for defendants represents to this court that the subject 10 hearing is “in queue to be scheduled.” Id. If that representation is true, such hearing 11 would provide plaintiff the process requested and, thus, moot this claim. Given the 12 above, the court concludes that plaintiff failed to show that he is likely to succeed on the 13 merits of his claim for deprivation of due process. 14 15 16 17 18 2. Plaintiff Failed to Show Irreparable Injury in the Absence of the Preliminary Relief Requested Plaintiff suggests that, in the absence of preliminary relief, he will suffer irreparable injury in three ways. First, plaintiff argues that defendants will retaliate against him by future 19 “unconstitutional search and harassment without warrants or prior notice.” Dkt. 20 at 7. 20 Plaintiff appears to base this argument on the July 30, 2020 search. Id. This reason is 21 undermined by the evidence proffered: a judge authorized such entry without 24-hour 22 notice by warrant. Dkt. 20-1 at 9-14. 23 In his reply, plaintiff states that he “continues to claim there was no warrant” until 24 he “may challenge the affidavit of probable cause.” Dkt. 26 at 2. Despite having that 25 affidavit, Dkt. 25-2, plaintiff failed to contest its sufficiency or accuracy. In any event, 26 based on review of that affidavit, the court finds it implausible that he could overcome its 27 presumed validity. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 171 (1978). Accordingly, the court 28 has no basis to conclude that defendants will unlawfully retaliate against plaintiff. 6 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Second, plaintiff suggests that the defendants’ actions will harm the “forever 2 benefits” of his property’s “land patent.” Dkt. 20 at 7. Plaintiff fails to explain how, absent 3 preliminary relief, defendants would disrupt any such perpetual benefits of his real 4 property. The court cannot discern one. Given that, it need not consider any such harm. 5 Third, while not neatly articulated, plaintiff argues that defendants will direct PG&E 6 to terminate his power. This argument potentially carries more weight. Plainly, the 7 absence of utilities may harm plaintiff. However, he fails to explain how or why any such 8 harm would be irreparable. In any event, any cognizable harm that plaintiff could cite as 9 a result of having his electricity terminated appears self-imposed. As defendants “hope” 10 for in their opposition, plaintiff could “abate the public nuisance and . . . work with the 11 County . . . to deal with the violations.” Dkt. 25 at 7. Accordingly, the court concludes 12 that plaintiff failed to clearly show that he will likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence 13 of preliminary relief. 14 15 16 3. Defendants Showed that the Remaining Winters Factors Cut Against Ordering the Preliminary Relief Requested In his opening brief, plaintiff did not present any evidence or make any arguments 17 establishing that the balance of equities tips in his favor or that the requested relief is in 18 the public interest. On these omissions alone, plaintiff failed to satisfy the remaining 19 Winters factors. 20 That failure aside, defendants proffered evidence showing that the public interest 21 favors denying any preliminary relief that would prevent it from pursuing abatement 22 proceedings against plaintiff or terminating his utilities. Significantly, in his declaration to 23 this court, Hoffman states the following: 24 25 26 27 28 “the unpermitted and illegal electrical wiring and gas piping systems in the cannabis barn, presented an immediate and serious danger to the public, as well as the residents on the property. The open electrical wiring ran through water and in a different room, wiring was present with the unpermitted gas piping. A major fire or explosion could occur at any time, thereby endangering the surrounding neighbors and community. It is imperative that the entire electrical system be shut down until the problems are abated and legally permitted.” 7 Dkt. 25-1 ¶ 10. 1 2 3 plaintiff’s barn that appear consistent with this determination. Dkt. 25-5 at 11-12. Both 4 show rows of cannabis under exposed ceilings with hanging wires and lights as well as 5 uncovered air vents. Id. Aside from his conclusory assertions that there are “no 6 immediate dangers to person or property,” Dkt. 26 at 4; Dkt. 27 at 2, plaintiff fails to 7 proffer any evidence contradicting Hoffman’s determination. Given the apparent fire risk 8 that the conditions of the barn poses, the court concludes that the public interest cuts in 9 favor of denying the preliminary relief requested. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California Attached to his return of warrant, Hoffman provides two pictures from inside Lastly, given the abundant evidence proffered by defendants that plaintiff has been 11 engaged in unlawful activity, Dkt. 25-5 at ¶ 4 (B)-(C) (listing 16 different sorts of 12 violations), the court further concludes that the balance of equities also favors denying 13 that relief. CONCLUSION 14 15 For the above reasons, the court DENIES plaintiff’s application for a temporary 16 restraining order and motion for preliminary injunction. The court acknowledges that 17 Sonoma County alternatively argues that the court should dismiss the claims against it 18 under the Younger abstention doctrine. Sonoma County raises that issue in its pending 19 motion to dismiss, which is the proper procedural vehicle for the court to address it. 20 21 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 5, 2020 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
