Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03328/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03328-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Philip Diaz Cannon
Plaintiff
County of Sonoma
Defendant
Diana Gomez
Defendant
Tyra Harrington
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN PHILIP DIAZ CANNON,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIANA GOMEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-03328-SI 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN 

FORMA PAUPERIS; STAYING

ACTION; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

APPLICATION FOR A TEMPORARY 

RESTRAINING ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 4, 8

Plaintiff Benjamin Philip Diaz Cannon has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. Nos. 4, 8. The Court finds these 

matters appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and 

VACATES the hearing set for July 13, 2018. For the reasons set out below, the Court GRANTS 

plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis; STAYS the action; and DENIES the 

application for a temporary restraining order.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Benjamin P.D. Cannon is a resident of San Francisco County and owns a property 

used as a recreational vehicle resort (the “Property”) in Sonoma County. Defendant County of 

Sonoma is a political subdivision of the State of California. Defendant Diana Gomez is an 

attorney in Sonoma County’s County Counsel’s Office. Defendant Tyra Harrington is an 

employee in Sonoma County’s Permit and Resource Management Division. 

On October 14, 2016, defendant Sonoma County initiated a lawsuit in Sonoma County 

Superior Court against plaintiff (“Underlying Action”) “to enforce building, grading, sewage, and 

Case 3:18-cv-03328-SI Document 13 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 6
2

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

Northern District of California

zoning code violations and to abate a public nuisance and for public relief.”1 Compl. to Enforce 

Building, Grading, Sewage, and Zoning Code Violations and to Abate a Public Nuisance and for 

Injunctive Relief, County of Sonoma v. Cannon, SCV 259605 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 14, 2016).2 

The Sonoma County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order on October 20, 2016, 

requiring plaintiff to cease ongoing violations of county codes and to abate the violations by 

obtaining necessary permits or by demolishing and removing the violating structures. Order to 

Show Cause for Prelim. Inj. and TRO at 5-8, Cannon, SCV 259605 (Cal. Super. Ct. Oct. 20, 2016) 

(“Sonoma County TRO”). After a hearing, the Sonoma County Superior Court adopted the 

Sonoma County TRO as a preliminary injunction. See Prelim. Inj. and Order, Cannon, SCV 

259605 (Cal. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2016). 

According to plaintiff, defendant Diana Gomez “filed a document stating she [was] 

seeking over $1.2million dollars in fines alone” on February 20, 2018. Dkt. No. 1, Compl. at 4 

¶ 5. Plaintiff claims the parties to the Underlying Action “entered into a stipulated Settlement on 

Feb 26, 2018. It was agreed that Mr. Cannon would obtain a grading permit and pay some fines 

by March 15, 2018.” Id. at 4 ¶ 4. However, on March 5, 2018, Sonoma County filed an ex parte

application for an order to show cause on the grounds that plaintiff remained in violation of the 

Sonoma County TRO and preliminary injunction. Notice of Ex Parte Appl. for Order to Show 

Cause re Contempt at 2, Cannon, SCV 259605 (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 5, 2018). Plaintiff attempted 

to remove the Underlying Action to the Northern District of California under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

 

1 A district court “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without 

the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” Bias v. 

Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Plaintiff’s claims in the 

present case arise from defendant Sonoma County’s lawsuit against plaintiff in Sonoma County 

Superior Court. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1, Compl. at 3-5 ¶¶ 1-11 (discussing the Underlying Action in 

framing the present case’s “Procedural history”). Plaintiff seeks to incorporate at least two filings 

from the Underlying Action in the Complaint. See id. at 3 ¶ 1 (“The County filed an action against 

Cannon on October 20, 2016 ( a copy thereof is attached and incorporated), and also filed a 

Temporary Restraining Order (also attached and incorporated).”). This Court therefore obtained 

copies of the record and filings in the Underlying Action from the Sonoma County Superior Court. 

This Court now takes judicial notice of the Underlying Action record and filings sua sponte. Fed. 

R. Evid. 201(c)(1).

2

Plaintiff incorrectly states that Sonoma County initiated the Underlying Action on 

October 20, 2016. See Dkt. No. 1, Compl. at 3-4 ¶ 1.

Case 3:18-cv-03328-SI Document 13 Filed 07/09/18 Page 2 of 6
3

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

Northern District of California

that same day. Notice of Removal at 1, County of Sonoma v. Cannon, 18-cv-01419 (N.D. Cal. 

Mar. 5, 2018). The case was remanded to Sonoma County Superior Court for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. Order Adopting Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Cannon, 

18-cv-01419 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2018); Referral for Reassignment and Report and 

Recommendation to Remand at 2-3, Cannon, 18-cv-01419 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2018). A case 

management conference is currently scheduled for September 25, 2018 in Sonoma County 

Superior Court. Notice of Hr’g, Cannon, SCV 259605 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 20, 2018). Sonoma 

County has also renewed its March 5 application for an order to show cause. See Mot. for Order 

to Show Cause, Cannon, SCV 259605 (Cal. Super. Ct. June 27, 2018).

On June 5, 2018, after the Underlying Action was remanded to state court, plaintiff filed 

the present action to litigate his § 1983 claims. Compl. at 1 ¶ 1. Plaintiff alleges seven causes of 

action in his complaint. Id. at 18-20. Plaintiff claims defendants (1) “illegally attach[ed] the 

[timberland production] zoning to Mr. Cannon’s parcel, and refus[ed] to remove it when 

requested”; (2) unlawfully denied plaintiff due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment 

when defendants “fail[ed] to so much as read, let alone review and approve/deny, Mr. Cannon’s 

permit applications, and . . . illegally and forcibly enter[ed] and abat[ed] Mr. Cannon’s valid uses” 

of his property; (3) violated the Fourth Amendment when defendants’ agents “enter[ed] illegally 

into Mr. Cannon’s property, and kick[ed] out his paying guests,” “caus[ing] Mr. Cannon’s 

business to fail”; (4) violated the Eighth Amendment when defendants “lobbied a world-record 

fine for a few RV utility hookups of over $1.2million dollars”; (5) made unlawful negligent 

misrepresentations; (6) “deliberately conspired together to defraud a judge into believing that there 

was no PG&E meter or switchgear protecting the power service to a rural resort in a wooded 

area”; and (7) “deliberately interfered with Mr. Cannon’s business, in a coordinated effort to harm 

him and deny him access to the courts.” Id.

Presently before the Court are plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and ex 

parte application for a temporary restraining order. Dkt. Nos. 4, 8.

Case 3:18-cv-03328-SI Document 13 Filed 07/09/18 Page 3 of 6
4

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

Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

District courts must preliminarily screen in forma pauperis proceedings and dismiss 

actions that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek 

monetary relief against a defendant which is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). 

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 

ongoing state proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 

circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). The use of Younger abstention in 

civil proceedings is an “extraordinary and narrow exception” to the general rule that federal courts 

must exercise jurisdiction over cases properly before them. Potrero Hills Landfill Inc. v. Cnty. of 

Solano, 657 F.3d 876, 882 (9th Cir. 2011). In civil cases, “Younger abstention is appropriate only 

when the state proceedings: (1) are ongoing, (2) are quasi-criminal enforcement actions or involve 

a state’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, (3) implicate an important 

state interest, and (4) allow litigants to raise federal challenges.” ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. 

State Compensation Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 759 (9th Cir. 2014). “If these threshold elements are 

met, [courts] then consider whether the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining 

the state proceedings and whether an exception to Younger applies.” Id. (internal quotations 

omitted). Where a district court finds Younger abstention appropriate as to a request for 

declaratory or injunctive relief, the court may not retain jurisdiction and must dismiss the action. 

Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988). However, the action should be stayed, 

rather than dismissed, if the claim is one for damages. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 981 

(9th Cir. 2004); see also King v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 885 F.3d 548, 559 (9th Cir. 2018) (“For the 

remaining claims for damages, the most that Younger could possibly require is a stay pending the 

completion of the state proceedings”). 

Abstention may be inappropriate in the extraordinary circumstance that (1) the party 

seeking relief in federal court does not have an adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable 

injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997), 

overruled on other grounds by City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (citing Younger, 401 

Case 3:18-cv-03328-SI Document 13 Filed 07/09/18 Page 4 of 6
5

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

Northern District of California

U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is incompetent by reason of bias, Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 

U.S. 564, 577-79 (1973). A party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of honesty and 

integrity in those serving as adjudicators. Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Ct. of Cal., 67 F.3d 

708, 713 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

DISCUSSION

I. Plaintiff’s Application To Proceed In Forma Pauperis Is Granted.

Plaintiff Benjamin PD Cannon has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 

No. 4. The Court determines that plaintiff has met the standard for proceeding in forma pauperis. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Dkt. No. 4. The Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. 

II. This Court Must Stay Review Of Plaintiff’s Claims.

This Court must abstain from reviewing plaintiff’s claims because all of the requirements 

for Younger abstention are met. First, the Underlying Action is ongoing, with a case management 

conference scheduled for September 25, 2018. Notice of Hr’g, Cannon, SCV 259605. Second, 

this action turns on the preliminary injunction entered in the Underlying Action, which necessarily 

involves Sonoma County’s interest in enforcing its court’s orders. Third, this action implicates 

Sonoma County’s broader interest of protecting its citizens’ health and welfare through local 

ordinances. Fourth, there is no indication that plaintiff will be unable to raise his federal 

challenges in state court. In fact, both the United States and California Supreme Courts have 

expressly held that a party may assert a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in state court. Martinez v. 

California, 444 U.S. 277, 283 n.7 (1980); Brown v. Pitchess, 531 P.2d 772, 775 (Cal. 1975). 

Additionally, plaintiff’s claims here “go to the heart of his opposition” in the Underlying Action. 

Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 982. Thus, federal action here “would have the same practical effect on 

the state proceeding as an injunction.” Id.

Further, there is no evidence that abstention is inappropriate. Plaintiff asserts that he 

Case 3:18-cv-03328-SI Document 13 Filed 07/09/18 Page 5 of 6
6

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

Northern District of California

“cannot obtain a fair trial in Sonoma County” because of his previous lawsuit against Sonoma 

County. Compl. at 16 ¶ 98. However, plaintiff does not allege any facts supporting such a claim. 

The presumption of honesty and integrity stands. See Hirsh, 67 F.3d at 713.

This Court thus finds that Younger abstention is necessary. Although the Court must 

abstain from adjudicating plaintiff’s claims, plaintiff seeks “general damages including without 

limitation damages from loss of use, loss of economic value, damages from civil rights violations, 

[and] reliance damages.” Compl. at 20. The Court must therefore “preserv[e] the federal 

plaintiff’s opportunity to pursue compensation in the forum of his choice.” Gilbertson, 381 F.3d 

at 981. Accordingly, this Court STAYS this case pending resolution of the Underlying Action. If 

plaintiff prevails in the Underlying Action, plaintiff may move to lift the stay in the present case.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff’s application to proceed in 

forma pauperis and STAYS the case. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s ex parte application for a 

temporary restraining order pending resolution of the Underlying Action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2018

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-03328-SI Document 13 Filed 07/09/18 Page 6 of 6