Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02654/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02654-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

18cv02654 JAH (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUDITH J. HOFFMAN,

Plaintiff ,

 v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, DAVID 

MILLER, Deputy City Attorney; 

RICHARDSON GRISWOLD, Receiver; 

and DOES 1-20,

Defendants

Case No.: 18cv02654 JAH (BGS)

ORDER 

1. GRANTING DEFENDANTS CITY 

OF SAN DIEGO, DAVID MILLER AND

RICHARDSON GRISWOLD’S 

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

[DOC. NOS. 10, 12]

2. DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO RECONSIDER 

INTRODUCTION

On March 4, 2019, this matter came before the Court for motion hearings on (1) 

Defendant Richard Griswold’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Fed. R. Civ. P.) (Doc. No. 10); and (2) Deputy 

City Attorney David Miller and City of San Diego’s (collectively referred to as “City 

Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Doc. 

No. 11). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motions to

dismiss on abstention grounds and DENIES Plaintiff’s oral motion to reconsider the 

Court’s order denying her ex parte application for a Temporary Restraining Order 

(“TRO”).

Case 3:18-cv-02654-JAH-BGS Document 22 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

18cv02654 JAH (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BACKGROUND

On June 14, 2017, the State of California and the City of San Diego (“City”) filed 

an action in state court against Judith J. Hoffman (“Hoffman” or “Plaintiff”) alleging

numerous code violations; including insect and vermin infestation, improper maintenance, 

accumulation of debris and garbage, public nuisance, poor electrical wiring, and inadequate 

exit facilities in violation of state and local law. Doc. No. 18 at 14-31. Plaintiff was 

identified as the “Responsible Person” and owner of the substandard property at issue. Id. 

at 15. Alleging in the complaint that the conditions at the property are so extensive as to 

endanger the health and safety of Hoffman and the public, the State of California and the 

City requested the appointment of a receiver and a permanent injunction prohibiting 

Hoffman from maintaining or using the property. Id. at 21-23. The City applied, ex parte, 

for appointment of Receiver Richardson Griswold, which the court granted.

1 Doc. No. 11-

1, at 1, 2. On November 13, 2018, the court authorized Griswold to list Plaintiff’s property 

for sale to recover expenses. Id. The two remaining causes of action for violations of civil 

and municipal codes are set for trial on July 19, 2019. Doc. Nos. 18 at 62, 70. 

On November 20, 2018, Hoffman, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 USC §1983 against Deputy City Attorney Miller and appointed Receiver 

Griswold in District Court for the Southern District of California. Doc. No. 1. On 

November 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed an amended pleading entitled “First Amended 

Complaint; Petition under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action; and Petition for 

Emergency Injunctive Declaratory Relief” (“FAC”), and added the City of San Diego as a 

Defendant. Doc. No. 3. In the prayer for relief, Plaintiff requests the issuance of “an 

extraordinary...TRO to protect Plaintiff’s right to trial and ensure constitutional 

protections, guarantees, rights, and privileges and or immunities are protected.” Doc. No. 

 

1 The State court’s order granting appointment of a receiver was affirmed on appeal. See Doc. No. 18 at 

62-63.

Case 3:18-cv-02654-JAH-BGS Document 22 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

18cv02654 JAH (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3. In addition, she asks this Court to issue a stay against the State of California and the City 

of San Diego to prevent the sale of her property and any other such relief the Court deems 

appropriate.

Shortly after summons were issued, the case was reassigned to this Court pursuant 

to Local Rule 40.1. Doc. No. 5. Summons were returned executed and Defendants filed the 

instant motions to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC. See Doc. Nos. 10-12. Plaintiff filed a nonresponsive pleading discussing the merits of the underlying state court action and again 

requesting the issuance of a TRO and injunction - without regard to the jurisdictional or 

abstention issues raised by Defendants. Doc. No. 15. On February 07, 2019, Plaintiff filed 

a “Second Ex Parte Emergency Motion Petitioning for a Temporary Restraining Order....” 

On February 11, 2019, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s ex parte application

pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2283 and on abstention grounds. Doc. No. 19. 

At the hearing on Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Plaintiff presented her response 

to the Court. The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s filing on the on record, and construed it as a 

motion to reconsider the Court’s February 11, 2019 order denying the TRO. The Court 

now addresses Defendants’ motions to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider.

DISCUSSION

I. MOTIONS TO DISMISS 

A. FRCP 12(b)(1): Subject-Matter Jurisdiction 

Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), a party may move to dismiss based on the court’s lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). If jurisdiction is lacking, the

dismissing court is deprived of any power to adjudicate the merits of the case. Hampton v. 

Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co. LLC, 869 F.3d 844, 846 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Wages v. I.R.S., 915 

F.2d 1230, 1234 (9th Cir. 1990). The burden of establishing jurisdiction rests upon the 

party asserting it. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

“A Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or factual”. Safe Air for 

Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 

1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000)). A facial attack challenges the allegations as insufficient on 

Case 3:18-cv-02654-JAH-BGS Document 22 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

18cv02654 JAH (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. Id. In civil rights cases, where a litigant appears 

pro se, the court must construe the pleadings liberally and afford the litigant the benefit of 

any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1988).

A plaintiff properly invokes federal question jurisdiction when she pleads a 

colorable claim “arising under” the Constitution or laws of the United States. Arbaugh v. 

Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006). A suit does not invoke the jurisdiction of a federal 

court if the claims alleged are “made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction” or 

“wholly insubstantial and frivolous.” Id. (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682–83).

However, “a complaint that makes a claim, that if true, would provide a basis on which a 

federal court could grant... relief, but is later shown ...to have no merit, nevertheless 

successfully invokes federal jurisdiction”. Carter v. Homeward Residential, Inc., 794 F.3d 

806, 807 (7th Cir. 2015). In simpler terms, even a weak claim deserves dismissal on the 

merits. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infringed upon her rights, protections, 

privileges and immunities as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Complaint alleges 

Defendants, acting under color of law, “willfully violate[d] Plaintiff’s Constitutional right 

to privacy and right to self-expression....” In Count one, two, and six, Plaintiff alleges 

“Defendants ....conspired to...subject Plaintiff to cruel and unusual [punishment]” by 

commandeering her private residence and issuing unreasonable fines. In Counts three and 

five, Plaintiff asserts a Fourteenth amendment violation for deprivation of property without 

due process and Count four of the FAC alleges Defendants “abridge[d] Plaintiff’s Fourth 

Amendment rights through the wrongful removal of her personal property without 

inventory....” Plaintiff asserts each cause of action against Receiver Griswold and City 

Defendants. 

Defendant Griswold argues that this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over 

causes of action against him, as a court-appointed receiver, under the Barton Rule. Barton 

v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881). The Supreme Court in Barton held that federal courts are 

without jurisdiction to entertain suits against receivers without permission from the 

Case 3:18-cv-02654-JAH-BGS Document 22 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

18cv02654 JAH (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

appointing court. Id. Although Plaintiff fails to address the jurisdictional issues in her 

response, the Court finds that the statutory exception to Barton set out in 28 U.S.C. § 

959(a)2 applies here, refuting Griswold’s argument. 

Nonetheless, the Court must be satisfied that the allegations in Plaintiff’s FAC are 

sufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction. Dismissal for lack of subject-matter 

jurisdiction because of the inadequacy of the federal claim is proper only when the claim 

is “so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise 

completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.” Steel Co. v. Citizens 

for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 89 (1998) (quoting Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County 

of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 666 (1974)). Although City Defendants argue Plaintiff’s 

allegations fall short of the pleading requirements set forth under Rule 8, they concede that 

“dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 does not depend on whether the complaint is 

wholly without merit,” citing McHenry v. Renne, 84 F. 3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996). “The

failure to state a proper cause of action calls for a judgment on the merits and not for a 

dismissal for want of jurisdiction.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946). As in Bell, this 

Court cannot say that the claims are so devoid of merit as to justify dismissal for want of

jurisdiction. Id. at 683. The Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations meet the minimum 

requirements necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.

B. Abstention 

Even when federal jurisdiction has been invoked, federal courts may decline to 

exercise jurisdiction, “where abstention is warranted by considerations of ‘proper 

constitutional adjudication,’ ‘regard for federal-state relations,’ or ‘wise judicial 

administration.’” Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 716 (1996) (quoting 

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). Federal 

courts may refrain from hearing cases that would interfere with state criminal, or certain

 

2 Section 959(a) provides that trustees, receivers or managers of any property, may be sued, without 

leave of the court appointing them, with respect to any of their acts or transactions in carrying on 

business connected with such property. 28 U.S.C. §959(a). 

Case 3:18-cv-02654-JAH-BGS Document 22 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

18cv02654 JAH (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

civil, proceedings. Id. (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (criminal 

proceedings); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975) (civil proceeding)). 

Defendants Giswold, Miller, and The City argue that the Younger doctrine 

necessitates dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. The Younger doctrine requires a federal 

court to abstain “if the state proceedings are (1) ongoing (2) implicate important state 

interests and (3) provides an adequate opportunity for the federal plaintiff to assert his 

federal claims.” San Remo Hotel v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th 

Cir. 1998). All three criteria for abstention under Younger are met here. Plaintiff has an 

upcoming trial date set in the state court action. In addition, the state interests implicated 

in this public nuisance action are of the utmost importance. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 

420 U.S. 592, 604 (197) (comparing the state’s interest in a nuisance case to that of a 

criminal proceeding). The Supreme Court in Huffman held that federal intervention in state 

initiated nuisance-proceedings is disruptive of the State’s efforts to protect interests which 

it deems important and “deprives the States of a function which quite legitimately is left to 

them.” Id. at 609 (1975). 

A civil litigant may, of course, seek review in this Court of any federal claim 

properly asserted in and rejected by state courts. Moreover, where a final decision 

of a state court has sustained the validity of a state statute challenged on federal 

constitutional grounds, an appeal to this Court lies as a matter of right. 28 U.S.C. s 

1257(2)...we conclude that [plaintiff] should not be permitted the luxury of federal 

litigation of issues presented by ongoing state proceedings, a luxury which, as we 

have already explained, is quite costly in terms of the interests which Younger seeks 

to protect.

Id. at 605-06. Plaintiff has adequate opportunity to raise her constitutional claims before 

the state court, and if necessary on appeal. To the extent Plaintiff has already appealed the 

court’s order granting appointment of receiver, she may petition the California Supreme 

Court for review. As in H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000), 

Plaintiff “desire[s] wholesale federal intervention into an ongoing state [action]. [She]

seeks vacation of existing...orders, and a federal injunction directing the future course of 

the state litigation.” This is an improper use of the federal court.

Case 3:18-cv-02654-JAH-BGS Document 22 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

18cv02654 JAH (BGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may, upon motion, relieve a 

party from final judgment or order for: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable 

neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence. . .; (3) fraud. . ., misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 

satisfied, released or discharged. . .; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the 

operation of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for reconsideration “should not 

be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with 

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in 

the controlling law.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) 

(citations omitted).

In light of the Court’s reasoning in the order denying Plaintiff’s ex parte emergency 

motion for a TRO , and the discussion above on Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court 

finds no clear error has been committed. Plaintiff has neither presented new evidence nor 

any intervening change in the law. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider is DENIED. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds abstention is appropriate and therefore 

declines to address Defendants’ motions on the merits. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider the Court’s February 11, 2019 Order denying the 

ex parte Emergency Application for a TRO is DENIED.

2. Defendants’ motions to dismiss [doc. nos. 10, 11] are GRANTED on abstention 

grounds. 

3. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [doc. no. 3] is DISMISSED in its entirety 

as to all Defendants without prejudice. 

DATED: March 8, 2019 ________________________________

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:18-cv-02654-JAH-BGS Document 22 Filed 03/08/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7