NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER EDWARD FERGUSON, No. 18-16564
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01525-APG-NJK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHAD BAKER, officer; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Edward Ferguson appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations
in connection with the seizure and impoundment of his vehicle. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th
Cir. 2011). We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Ferguson’s Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure
and Fourteenth Amendment due process claims for failure to state a claim.
However, Ferguson alleged that his vehicle was impounded after he was cited for
driving without a valid license and for not having car insurance, even though the
vehicle was parked 200 yards from Ferguson’s home and Ferguson offered to have
a family member retrieve the vehicle for him. Ferguson also alleged that his
vehicle was sold without any notice to him and before he had an opportunity to
contest the wrongful seizure of the vehicle in court. These allegations were
“sufficient to warrant ordering [defendants] to file an answer.” Wilhem v. Rotman,
680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859,
864 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]he Constitution requires some kind of . . . hearing before
the State deprives a person of liberty or property.” (citation omitted)); United
States v. Caseres, 533 F.3d 1064, 1075 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that community
caretaking rationale did not justify the impoundment of an unlicensed driver’s car
which was legally parked in a residential area and did not pose a hazard or
impediment to other traffic); Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 866 (9th
Cir. 2005) (“An officer cannot reasonably order an impoundment in situations
where the location of the vehicle does not create any need for the police to protect
2 18-16564
the vehicle or to avoid a hazard to other drivers.”). We therefore reverse the
district court’s dismissal of the action and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
3 18-16564