Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christopher Edward FERGUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chad BAKER, officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Christopher Edward Ferguson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations in connection with the seizure and impoundment of his vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011). We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Ferguson’s Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims for failure to state a claim. However, Ferguson alleged that his vehicle was impounded after he was cited for driving without a valid license and for not having car insurance, even though the vehicle was parked 200 yards from Ferguson’s home and Ferguson offered to have a family member retrieve the vehicle for him. Ferguson also alleged that his vehicle was sold without any notice to him and before he had an opportunity to contest the wrongful seizure of the vehicle in court. These allegations were “sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 864 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he Constitution requires some kind of ․ hearing before the State deprives a person of liberty or property.” (citation omitted)); United States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064, 1075 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that community caretaking rationale did not justify the impoundment of an unlicensed driver’s car which was legally parked in a residential area and did not pose a hazard or impediment to other traffic); Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2005) (“An officer cannot reasonably order an impoundment in situations where the location of the vehicle does not create any need for the police to protect the vehicle or to avoid a hazard to other drivers.”). We therefore reverse the district court’s dismissal of the action and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-16564
Decided: July 23, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)