Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, CA

Summarized by:

  • Court: U.S. Supreme Court Certiorari Granted
  • Area(s) of Law: Civil Rights § 1983
  • Date Filed: June 28, 2019
  • Case #: 18-294
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: 715 Fed. Appx. 760 (9th Cir. 2018)
  • Full Text Opinion

(1) Whether taking and due process claims arising from an administrative disapproval ripen under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) upon disapproval of an initial application or only upon a final, definitive determination of permitted use of property. (2) Whether the procedure set up by the California Supreme Court requiring that all challenges to a subdivision decision be filed within 90 days - and barring later claims - provides an available and adequate state remedy under Williamson for taking claims which do not ripen until later.

Petitioner was denied approval to create subdivisions. After timely appeal, the decision was reversed, but this occurred three years later and six years after the application to create subdivisions was submitted. Petitioner sought damages and just compensation for the “taking and deprivation of due process.” The California Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the takings claim as untimely because the action was not filed within 90 days of the disapproval. The California Supreme Court denied review. Petitioner then sought relief in district court where the taking claim was dismissed as not ripe and the due process claim was dismissed as untimely. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Petitioner argues that the lower court decision directly conflicts with Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), as Petitioner sought his takings claim after a final decision regarding his application was received and after he sought compensation through state court. Petitioner similarly argues that the filing of the due process claim was timely in that it occurred within the two-year statute of limitations after the denial from the California Supreme Court was received. Petitioner further argues that the California remedies are unreasonable and inadequate and will “deny similarly-situated claimants their constitutional rights.” The U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded in light of Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U.S. __ (2019). VACATED and REMANDED.

Advanced Search

Back to Top