Hasbrouck v. Yavapai Cnty.

Earl M. Hasbrouck, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Yavapai County, et al., Defendant.

No. CV-20-08112-PCT-DWL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

February 1, 2021

ORDER

Plaintiffs Earl and Donna Hasbrouck ("Plaintiffs") are a married couple bringing this action pro se against Yavapai County (the "County"), eleven individual Yavapai County officials and employees, and one Arizona state official.¹ Plaintiffs' allegations arise from a series of disputes stretching back to the late 1990s concerning a parcel of real property they own in Yavapai County. In their sprawling and often inscrutable complaint, Plaintiffs assert an array of federal and state claims, including claims premised on violations of the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the Ex Post Facto and Bill of Attainder clauses of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1.)

The County and the eleven County employees and officials (collectively, "the County Defendants")² now move to dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 16.) Defendant CarltonWoodroof, sued in his official capacity as the Director of the Arizona Department of Revenue ("the State Defendant"), also moves to dismiss the complaint. (Doc. 18.) Also pending before the Court are (1) Plaintiffs' motion for clarification and remedial action (Doc. 39); (2) Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss County Supervisor Mary Mallory as a defendant (Doc. 40); and (3) Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice (Doc. 42). For the following reasons, the Court grants the State Defendant's motion to dismiss, grants in part and denies in part the County Defendants' motion to dismiss, grants Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Mallory, denies Plaintiffs' motion for clarification and remedial action, and denies Plaintiffs' motion for judicial notice. Based on these actions, the sole remaining claim is Count One, which is asserted solely against the County. Plaintiffs are granted limited leave to amend their complaint, if they wish to attempt to cure some of the deficiencies in this order, and the County is granted leave to seek dismissal of Count One regardless of whether Plaintiffs choose to amend.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

The following facts, which are assumed to be true for purposes of the pending motions, are derived from Plaintiffs' complaint and documents subject to judicial notice.³

In 1996, Plaintiffs (who are now octogenarians) purchased and moved to a parcel in Ash Fork, Yavapai County, Arizona. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 14, 24.) Following their arrival in Yavapai County, Plaintiffs planned to remodel their home and construct new structures on the parcel in accordance with plans submitted to and orally approved by Yavapai County officials. (Id. ¶¶ 14, 26; Doc. 1-1 at 2.) Shortly after Plaintiffs' purchase, however, a disagreement arose between Plaintiffs and personnel from Yavapai County Development Services ("YCDS") regarding various zoning issues, especially sewage and water issues. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 26-28.) Plaintiffs were told they did not need permits to make improvements to the property's sewage disposal system, but Plaintiffs sought and were awarded a permit anyway. (Id.) Personal circumstances prevented Plaintiffs from commencing their remodeling project in earnest until 2001, and in the meantime they had begun using twenty-foot steel shipping containers for storage on their lot. (Id. ¶¶ 29-32.)

In 2001, Plaintiffs got into a disagreement with the Arizona Department of Revenue ("ADOR") about the tax assessment of their property. (Id. ¶ 33.) ADOR insisted on assessing Plaintiffs' property at $400,000, which was based on the value of the property after Plaintiffs' ongoing construction project was to be completed. (Id.) This dispute was not resolved until 2007, when Plaintiffs successfully defeated the assessment when they "helped enact Prop. 207." (Id.)

In 2006, a diagram was posted on the Yavapai County Assessor's website showingthat Plaintiffs' property was out of zoning compliance and that certain portions of the structure on the property were not being calculated for tax purposes. (Doc. 1-1 at 4.) Plaintiffs did not discover this diagram until 2018. (Id.) Plaintiffs' allegations about their disputes with ADOR from 2001 to 2007, and the diagram posted in 2006 and discovered in 2018, constitute the totality of their factual allegations regarding the State Defendant. (Doc. 1 ¶ 33; Doc. 1-1 at 4.)

From roughly 2001 to 2007, Plaintiffs had other conflicts with neighbors and County officials regarding the storage of items on Plaintiffs' property and the use of water resources. (Id. ¶ 34.) Specifically, Plaintiffs complained to YCDS about misconduct occurring at a neighboring property, which led to demolition occurring on that property at County expense; joined "other dissenting community members" in protesting a newly drilled noncompliant well; and were subject to the County's "anonymous complaint strategy" regarding "debris" stored on their property. (Id.) Plaintiffs contend these spats partly led to their subsequent mistreatment, by "trigger[ing] additional bureaucratic revenge." (Id.)

In 2010, a YCDS official (who died in 2012 and is not a party here) asked Plaintiffs to rearrange the steel storage containers on their lot. (Id. ¶ 35.) Plaintiffs complied without understanding what, if any, basis YCDS had for making such a request. (Id.)

In 2012, Plaintiffs' building permits were "cancelled" without their knowledge. (Id. ¶ 36.) Plaintiffs continued to remodel their property, and only in July 2018 did they become aware of the cancellation or any other regulatory barriers to their remodeling project. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37.)

On December 1, 2017, the County Board of Supervisors passed a zoning ordinance limiting the number of storage sheds that can be located on a property. (Id. ¶ 56; Doc. 1-1 at 15.)

On July 17, 2018, Plaintiffs returned home to discover that a "Notice of Violation" placard had been placed on their property. (Doc. 1 ¶ 38.) Neighbors reported seeing YCDS personnel "conducting a warrantless search" of the premises and taking photographs. (Id.)Neighbors said there were three individuals, two of whom were YCDS staff and one of whom was "a law enforcement presence." (Id.) This led Plaintiffs to cease their construction projects. (Id.) Plaintiffs later received a follow-up letter from YCDS detailing alleged zoning infractions, including improperly storing vehicles and construction materials on the property. (Id. ¶ 39; Doc. 1-1 at 5-6.) Plaintiffs subsequently demanded an administrative hearing to resolve the alleged infractions. (Doc. 1 ¶ 40.)

On August 24, 2018, YCDS Land Use Director Rebecca Borowski ("Borowski") filed a notice of violation against Plaintiffs, which had the effect of commencing administrative proceedings. (Id. ¶ 41; Doc. 1-1 at 7.) On September 14, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an answer and counterclaim, including a separate notice to Arizona state officials regarding their "constitutional challenge." (Doc. 1 ¶ 42.) The parties then participated in a "trial" or preliminary hearing on October 9, 2018, during which Plaintiffs "objected to but complied faithfully with the biased Hearing Office Rules of Discovery clearly intended to provide prosecutorial advantage, YCDS refusing to participate." (Id. ¶ 43.)

From there, Plaintiffs engaged in settlement talks with Borowski and YCDS Department Head David Williams ("Williams"), who were "acting in their official capacity as joint prosecutors on behalf of Yavapai County" in the administrative action. (Id. ¶ 44.) Borowski and Williams "admitted their procedural error in bringing the action in the fraudulent manner done and agreed to extend [Plaintiffs'] original building permits for two years . . . ." (Id.) Hearing officer Larry C. Jacobs ("Jacobs") then officially opened proceedings for the record, "made the [C]ounty's settlement offer a matter of record," and acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs' plan for the administrative hearing. (Id.) "Plaintiffs were subsequently fined $100 . . . ." (Id.)

Settlement talks started to break down when the County Defendants learned about Plaintiffs' plan to identify at trial "the government entities responsible for instigating and maliciously pursuing the clearly fraudulent charges." (Id. ¶ 45.) According to Plaintiffs, "an immediate coverup commenced." (Id.) The County ultimately sent Plaintiffs an acknowledgement of violation that Plaintiffs refused to sign because they considered it a"contrivance clearly intended to impute guilt." (Id.; Doc. 1-1 at 8-9.) At this point efforts to settle the case effectively failed. Plaintiffs then filed an application and motion for default, papers that "remain blatantly ignored yet today." (Doc. 1 ¶ 46.) The original November 6, 2018 trial date "was vacated at Yavapai County['s] whim." (Id. ¶ 47.) Plaintiffs did not have an opportunity to object. (Id.)

On December 11, 2018, an administrative hearing took place. (Id. ¶ 48.) Plaintiffs allege they were treated unjustly by the presiding hearing officer, Peter Van Haren ("Van Haren"), in "what was clearly a setup." (Id.) Van Haren ordered Plaintiffs to sit quietly during the hearing, not allowing them to object verbally, and two sheriff's deputies sat behind Plaintiffs during the first half of the proceedings. (Id.) According to Plaintiffs, the evidence used during the hearing was "surprise hearsay." (Id.) After the hearing concluded, Van Haren fined Plaintiffs $100 and ordered them to (1) remove all disallowed storage items, construction material, commercial vehicles, and "general debris" from the property, or screen those "items from view with an approved permitted screening method"; (2) "obtain an issued permit to remove or retain all unpermitted construction"; and (3) "contact the land use specialist for an on-site compliance inspection" by January 20, 2019. (Doc. 16 at 37-38.) If the inspection found that the conditions of compliance were not met, a civil penalty of $7,500 would be imposed. (Id.)

Plaintiffs attempted to comply with Van...