Jerolyn Sackman v. City of Los Angeles , 677 F. App'x 365 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    FEB 16 2017
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JEROLYN CRUTE SACKMAN,                           No.   15-55846
    Plaintiff-Appellant,               D.C. No.
    2:15-cv-00090-DMG-E
    v.
    CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a Municipal                 MEMORANDUM*
    Corporation; GREG SAVELLI, in his
    official capacity as Executive Officer of
    Parking Enforcement and Traffic Control
    for the Los Angeles Department of
    Transportation,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted February 7, 2017
    Pasadena, California
    Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    Jerolyn Crute Sackman appeals the district court’s order dismissing with
    prejudice her 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claim based on a City of Los Angeles (“City”) law
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    that prohibits parking in the same spot on a public street for at least 72 hours (“the
    72-hour law”). We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo
    a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
    Procedure 12(b)(6). Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 
    838 F.3d 958
    , 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We
    affirm.
    1.     Sackman fails, as a matter of law, to state a claim for a violation of
    substantive due process. The 72-hour law did not implicate Sackman’s
    fundamental rights because the law impacts an economic/property interest. See
    Lone Star Sec. & Video, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 
    584 F.3d 1232
    , 1236 (9th Cir.
    2009). Because a fundamental right is not implicated here, the law is subject to
    rational basis review. See City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 
    473 U.S. 432
    ,
    440 (1985). The 72-hour law is rationally related to the City’s legitimate objective
    to discourage people from monopolizing parking spaces on streets for lengthy
    periods of time and to prevent the abandonment of cars. Apart from her
    conclusory allegations, Sackman fails to plausibly allege that the City’s
    enforcement of the 72-hour law in this case was arbitrary and irrational.
    2.     Sackman also fails, as a matter of law, to state a claim for a violation
    of procedural due process based on a purported lack of pre-citation and pre-towing
    notice. While Sackman contends that posted signs warning of the 72-hour law
    2
    were required as a matter of due process, a legislature generally provides the
    requisite level of notice “simply by enacting the statute, publishing it, and, to the
    extent the statute regulates private conduct, affording those within the statute’s
    reach a reasonable opportunity to familiarize themselves with the general
    requirements imposed and to comply with those requirements.” Lone Star, 
    584 F.3d at 1237
     (quotation and citation omitted). Here, the City provided further pre-
    towing notice by attaching a citation to Sackman’s vehicle two days before it was
    towed.
    Additionally, the procedural due process balancing test from Mathews v.
    Eldridge, 
    424 U.S. 319
     (1976), weighs in favor of the City. Even where the
    citation and impound of Sackman’s vehicle impacted a significant private interest,
    there was a low risk of erroneous deprivation because Sackman was able to contest
    the propriety of the citation and impound at administrative hearings and seek
    judicial review in state court1, and the posting of signs on every street would entail
    a substantial administrative and fiscal burden on the City.
    1
    Sackman’s request for the court to take judicial notice of state court records
    is GRANTED. However, those records do not reveal the basis for the state court’s
    decision to refund the citation fine, and even if the state court determined that the
    72-hour law was invalid under state law due to a lack of posted signs, a violation of
    constitutional due process does not necessarily follow. See Lone Star, 
    584 F.3d at 1236
    .
    3
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-55846

Citation Numbers: 677 F. App'x 365

Judges: Schroeder, Pregerson, Murguia

Filed Date: 2/16/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024