Opinion
No. 18-16564
07-23-2019
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD FERGUSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHAD BAKER, officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01525-APG-NJK MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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." Wilhem 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.