Detail of a county notice of violation.

###

PREVIOUSLY

###

A group of Southern Humboldt property owners can proceed with their class action lawsuit against the county and its leaders, challenging the legality of fees and penalties levied under the Planning and Building Department’s cannabis code enforcement system, following a decision handed down yesterday in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The decision, filed Monday by a three-judge panel, partially upholds and partially reverses last year’s dismissal of the case, sending it back to the district court for further proceedings.

The case was filed by the nonprofit Institute for Justice on behalf of Miranda property owners Corrine and Doug Thomas, who were later joined by three other plaintiffs. Together they allege that the county violated their constitutional rights to due process by assessing exorbitant fines and fees for weed-related code violations that stemmed from the activities of previous owners.

The County of Humboldt was named as a defendant along with the Board of Supervisors, the Planning and Building Department and that department’s director, John Ford.

The appeals court’s decision focused only on one aspect of the district court’s ruling — namely, that Humboldt County’s system of administrative penalties and fees violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines. In his May 2023 ruling, United States Magistrate Judge Robert M. Illman dismissed that allegation, reasoning that while the plaintiffs had been sent notices of violation, “No party has actually paid a fine.” Therefore, he said, they lacked standing to sue.

But the appeals court panel disagreed, ruling that the county’s penalties caused plaintiffs emotional and psychological distress, and they had to spend money attempting to abate the violations by hiring engineers to inspect their property and attorneys to represent them in hearings. 

Monday’s decision also reverses a district court ruling that the statute of limitations had expired, with the panel saying the clock only started to run when the plaintiffs were served with notices of violations, not, as the district court found, when the county enacted the relevant ordinance.

As for the merits of the case, the appeals court says plaintiffs “plausibly alleged” that the fines were excessive based on the following points:

  1. at least some of the plaintiffs have been charged with violations that happened before they purchased and moved onto their properties; 
  2. the violations were inaccurately charged or were the fault of previous property owners; 
  3. lesser penalties could accomplish the same health and safety goals; and 
  4. the alleged offenses caused no harm beyond a technical lack of compliance with the county’s cannabis permitting regulations.

In the conclusion to Monday’s decision, Judge Richard A. Paez writes, “Local governments are often at the forefront of addressing difficult and complex issues. As a consequence, they undoubtedly require flexibility in their decision-making. Nonetheless, and as we have recently observed, ‘[t]he government cannot overstep its authority and impose fines on its citizens without paying heed to the limits posed by the Eighth Amendment.’”

The case will now return to the district court level for further proceedings consistent with the appeals court’s opinion.

The county declined to comment on Monday’s decision, with Public Information Specialist Cati Gallardo explaining via email, “[T]his is a legal matter and in order to respect the integrity of that process the county will not discuss this topic with the press at this time.”

The Institute for Justice, meanwhile, published the following statement on its website earlier today:

HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA—Today, in a significant victory for property rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned a district court decision that dismissed a lawsuit challenging Humboldt County’s unconstitutional code enforcement program. The lawsuit, brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ) on behalf of a group of Humboldt property owners, now moves forward to challenge the county’s abusive system of ruinous fines levied without investigation.

“This ruling is a critical step toward dismantling Humboldt County’s unconstitutional enforcement regime,” said IJ Attorney Jared McClain.

“The Ninth Circuit’s decision affirms that counties cannot impose exorbitant fines based on flimsy evidence and delay hearings indefinitely. This sets an important precedent, and we are eager to continue our fight for justice on behalf of Humboldt property owners.”

The lawsuit centers on Humboldt County’s aggressive and unconstitutional code enforcement practices. Following the legalization of marijuana in California, the county created a system where property owners could face hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties for alleged violations supposedly linked to cannabis cultivation—even when no cultivation occurred. Some fines, for instance, were based on years-old satellite images, with no on-the-ground investigation ever conducted. Other fines were imposed because prior owners grew marijuana, even though the current owners were not involved in any way. Owners had to wait years for hearings while fines continued to accrue, often forcing settlements under duress.

Calling Humboldt’s fines an “overstep,” the Ninth Circuit wrote that, “there are clear and concrete injuries stemming from the imposition of the penalties. Taking Plaintiffs’ factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in their favor, the continued imposition of such significant penalties has already caused Plaintiffs emotional and psychological distress.”

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Corinne and Doug Thomas, Blu Graham, and Rhonda Olson—all property owners who faced crippling fines for alleged violations they did not commit. The lawsuit challenges Humboldt’s fines as excessive and unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, while also asserting that the county’s code-enforcement system violates due process and imposes unconstitutional conditions on homeowners. All those claims can now go forward on remand.

This lawsuit is part of the Institute for Justice’s broader initiative to combat excessive fines and fees levied under the guise of zoning or property code enforcement. IJ’s nationwide efforts have already secured victories curbing abusive practices in Pagedale, Missouri, Indianapolis and elsewhere. By targeting unconstitutional fines, IJ aims to restore fairness and proportionality to local government practices.

###

DOCUMENT: Appeals court ruling in Thomas v. County of Humboldt, et al.