Teixeira et al v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 30

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING; RE-SETTING HEARING (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 12/18/2012)

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
No. C 12-3288 SI

TEIXEIRA, et al.,
5

ORDER RE: SUPPLEMENTAL
BRIEFING; VACATING HEARING

Plaintiffs,
6
7
8

v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

/

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Now before the Court are plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and defendants’ motion

11

to dismiss. Plaintiffs challenge the denial of a variance permit to allow them to open a gun store within

12

five-hundred feet of an area zoned for residential use. Plaintiffs’ complaint raises four Constitutional

13

claims for relief, including an equal protection and due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment,

14

and a facial and as-applied challenge under the Second Amendment. A threshold issue in both motions

15

is plaintiffs’ ability to pursue these claims in this Court without having first pursued state remedies.

16

Defendants argue that all of plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed because plaintiffs “failed to

17

exhaust their judicial remedies.” Def. Mot. at 5. Under California law, the sole procedure for judicial

18

review of zoning determinations is a petition for a writ of mandate in accordance with California Code

19

of Civil Procedure § 1094.5. Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal.4th 61, 70-71 (2000). Defendants

20

contend that before initiating a lawsuit in federal court for injunctive relief and damages, plaintiffs must

21

first exhaust their judicial remedies regarding zoning determinations. Failure to do so, defendants

22

contend, means that the underlying administrative decision has preclusive effect in federal and state

23

court. Citing United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (1966), defendants

24

contend that where the administrative agency acted in a judicial capacity, resolved disputed issues of

25

fact before it, and both parties had an adequate opportunity to litigate, the administrative decision has

26

a preclusive effect as to both legal and factual issues, even those unreviewed.

27

Plaintiffs respond that it is well-settled that exhaustion of judicial or state remedies is not a

28

prerequisite to bringing an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Patsy v. Bd. of Regents, 457 U.S. 496,

1

500 (1982) (“[W]e have on numerous occasions rejected the argument that a § 1983 action should be

2

dismissed where the plaintiff has not exhausted state administrative remedies.”). Patsy, however, does

3

not dispose of the instant issue. Although plaintiffs’ use the phrase “failure to exhaust,” the pressing

4

issue is what preclusive effect, if any, the administrative decision below has on this Court. Here

5

plaintiffs did not petition for a writ of mandate to challenge the factual findings of the West County

6

Board of Zoning Adjustments (“WBZA”), nor did plaintiffs challenge the legality of Alameda County

7

Ordinance § 17.54.131.
The consequences of plaintiffs’ failure to challenge the factual or legal accuracy of the decision

9

are squarely at issue in both instant motions. Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ failure is fatal to all four

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

constitutional claims. At a minimum, WBZA’s unchallenged legal and factual determinations appear

11

so closely tied to plaintiffs’ constitutional claims that any factual preclusion may be fatal to those

12

claims. For example, plaintiffs’ due process challenge is premised on WBZA’s consideration of an

13

allegedly late

14

filed appeal by a homeowner’s association to WBZA’s initial grant of a variance permit to plaintiffs.

15

Similarly, plaintiffs’ equal protection challenge is premised, in part, on the validity of WBZA’s ‘500

16

feet’ determination. Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims are also related to factual and legal

17

determinations made by the WBZA.

18

To resolve the instant motions, the Court must resolve the following issue: what preclusive

19

effect, if any, does plaintiffs’ failure to seek state review of the WBZA’s decisions have on this Court’s

20

authority to decide the factual questions and/or legal claims in plaintiffs’ complaint. Accordingly, the

21

Court hereby DIRECTS the parties to file with the Court no later than January 25, 2013, supplemental

22

briefs not to exceed 30 pages, addressing this issue. The December 21, 2012, hearing on the instant

23

motions is hereby VACATED and the hearing is rescheduled for February 22, 2013 at 9:00 a.m.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2012

26
27
28

SUSAN ILLSTON
2

1

United States District Judge

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3