In a momentum-shifting decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has revived a landowner class action lawsuit challenging Humboldt County’s cannabis abatement program. This week in Thomas v. Cnty. of Humboldt, Cal., No. 23-15847 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024), the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s 2023 dismissal of a class action lawsuit challenging Humboldt County’s system of penalties and fees regarding cannabis abatement. In reversing the district court, the Ninth Circuit first found that plaintiffs had standing for their substantive and procedural due process claims under both traditional “concrete injury” analysis (Carpinteria Valley Farms, Ltd. v. Cnty. of Santa Barbara, 344 F.3d 822, 830 (9th Cir. 2003)) as well as the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine” under Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (2013). Following the procedural due process claim balancing test laid out in Mathews v. Elridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976), the Ninth Circuit then found that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that (1) cognizable (and likely substantial) private interests are at stake, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation through the County’s administrative procedures was heightened, and (3) there is no clear governmental interest in maintaining the Humboldt County administrative penalty system. Following the substantive due process balancing test articulated in Freedom to Travel Campaign v. Newcomb, 82 F.3d 1431, 1438 (9th Cir. 1996), the Ninth Circuit found that plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the County had violated their fundamental due process right to a showing of personal guilt and that the County’s administrative penalty procedures are “clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.” Thomas v. Cnty of Humboldt, Cal. at p. 7, quoting Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 683 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2012) at 1058. The Ninth Circuit also found that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that the County’s procedure for evaluating land-use permit applications violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine (which prevents the government from coercing people into giving up Constitutional rights) by alleging that the County aims to coerce property owners into (1) accepting responsibility for violations the landowners contend the landowners did not commit, (2) paying significant fines related to such violations, and (3) forgoing their rights to an administrative hearing, all in violation of the 5th Amendment’s guarantee of just compensation for property the government takes. After dismantling the County’s statute of limitations defenses, the Ninth Circuit, in a separate opinion, affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of the 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims challenging the fines as barred by the Excessive Fines Clause of the 8th Amendment. The district court had dismissed these 8th Amendment claims as unripe because the class had not paid the fines, but the Ninth Circuit ruled that the fines need not have been paid for the claims to be ripe; the claims were ripe when the fines were imposed. The Ninth Circuit further determined under the facts alleged, that the 8th Amendment excessive fines claims were plausible as supported by allegations that (1) the fines were in some cases for violations that predated the plaintiffs’ ownership, (2) the fines were inaccurately charged or were the fault of previous owners, (3) lesser penalties could accomplish the same goals, and (4) the alleged offenses caused no harm beyond technical lack of compliance. Remanding the case back to the district court, the Ninth Circuit declined to reassign the lawsuit to a different judge, remarking that while the district court’s “dismissiveness” of the plaintiffs’ allegations “is cause for concern” (Thomas v. Cnty of Humboldt, Cal. at p. 16), the Ninth Circuit trusts the original judge to put out of his mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous. Id., citing Evon v. L. Offs. of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1034 (9th Cir. 2012), quoting United States v. Arnett, 628 F.2d 1162, 1165 (9th Cir. 1979).
