Armendariz v. Penman

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996 · Property

Propertyregulatory takingshousing codesdeliberate indifferencequalified immunityinterlocutory appealcollateral order doctrineJohnson v. Jones

Facts

In 1991 San Bernardino conducted mass housing-code sweeps in a high-crime, low-income area, summarily closing 95 buildings, evicting tenants, and revoking owners' business licenses and certificates of occupancy, often without advance notice or prompt explanation of the specific violations. The plaintiffs alleged that the City invoked emergency powers pretextually, faked serious code violations, withheld rehabilitation loans, and otherwise hindered repairs. They claimed the sweeps were aimed either at driving out undesirable tenants or at depressing property values so a commercial developer could acquire the land cheaply for a shopping center. In support of the equal protection theory, plaintiffs offered evidence that city officials had discussed with a developer methods of preventing rentals in targeted buildings and that the first buildings swept largely matched the developer's list.

Issue

Whether, on interlocutory review of the denial of qualified immunity, the court could review only the legal question whether the alleged conduct violated clearly established law, and whether the plaintiffs' allegations supported clearly established substantive due process or equal protection claims. More specifically, the court asked whether substantive due process was available when the same conduct was governed by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and whether targeting owners for code enforcement in order to depress acquisition costs could violate equal protection.

Rule

An interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity permits review only of the purely legal question whether the facts assumed by the district court show violation of clearly established law; it does not permit appellate review of whether the record creates genuine issues of material fact. When an explicit textual source of constitutional protection covers the challenged conduct, that provision—not generalized substantive due process—governs under Graham. State officials also violate equal protection when they selectively enforce land-use or housing regulations for malicious, irrational, plainly arbitrary, or pretextual reasons unrelated to the legitimate purpose of the regulatory scheme.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Owners of several duplexes in Fresno sued city inspectors and redevelopment staff under § 1983, alleging that emergency closure orders were used to pressure owners into selling. The district court denied the officials' summary-judgment motion, holding both that the complaint alleged violation of clearly established equal protection rights and that the record created a genuine dispute over whether Deputy Director Carla Mendez personally helped plan the closures.

On the officials' interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity, which issue may the court of appeals review?

Explanation. An interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity permits review of the purely legal question whether the facts assumed by the district court show violation of clearly established law. It does not permit review of fact-sufficiency questions such as whether the record creates a triable issue about a particular defendant's participation. That limitation follows from Johnson v. Jones as applied by the majority.