It's getting strange out there

AMonger · Jun 8, 2012

Notice that her car wasn't seized because she's a drug dealer or wouldn't register it or something similar. She was in an accident and was hospitalized. When she gets released, the state doesn't have to return her car, just because they removed it from the roadway after the accident. Anybody know the exact date of death of the Bill of Rights?

Ohio: Federal Court Says City Can Keep Seized Cars Federal magistrate rules that city has no constitutional duty to return vehicles impounded as a result of an accident.

A federal magistrate judge on Monday recommended a motorist's lawsuit against the city of Columbus, Ohio should be thrown out. Earlier this year, the city impounded the 2002 Saturn SC2 belonging to Michelle R. Mathis after she was hospitalized from a traffic accident. When Mathis was released, she had no way to get the car back. Her case was not helped by her handwritten demand to the court for $500 billion in damages.

On January 12, Columbus police grabbed Mathis's Saturn while she was being treated at Ohio State University Medical Hospital. Mathis was able to receive regular mail while recovering, but she never received any notification about the status of her car. On February 7, Mathis returned from her treatment and went to the impound lot in person, only to receive the run around. Mathis believes the city sold her car and holds a grudge against her.

"Plaintiff has and continues to have issues with the impound unit and thus would like to permanently restrain and grant an injunction on defendants and its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys from any further action resulting to any action with plaintiff," Mathis wrote in her complaint.

She insisted the lack of notice represented a violation of her due process rights, but the federal official tasked to investigate the claim for the court was not impressed.

"In this case, the undersigned finds that plaintiff fails to state a facially plausible federal claim," US Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers explained. "Plaintiff first attempts to a bring claim under the Fourth Amendment for unlawful seizure. From the facts plaintiff pleads, however, it appears that the seizure of her vehicle was proper. As both the Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit have held '[t]he authority of police to seize and remove from the streets vehicles impeding traffic or threatening public safety and convenience is beyond challenge.'"

The judge maintained there was no constitutional problem implicated by a city refusing to return a car, as long as it was seized for a legitimate reason.

"Furthermore, plaintiff's claims do not appear to challenge the actual seizure of her vehicle, but instead focus on her inability to regain possession of her vehicle. Plaintiff's interest in regaining her vehicle, however, is outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment.... Plaintiff also fails to state a viable claim under the Equal Protection Clause."

The judge also recommended dismissal because no pattern of misconduct had been established.

"The mere fact that plaintiff had poor experiences with the towing of a vehicle she previously owned is not enough for the court to reasonably conclude that the city of Columbus has adopted an implicit custom or policy that encourages its employees to violate plaintiff's federal rights," Deavers wrote. "Accordingly, plaintiff fails to satisfy the requisite pleading standards for municipal liability."

The magistrate's recommendation is available in a 25k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: Mathis v. Dept. of Public Safety (US District Court, Southern District Ohio, 6/4/2012)

Brisco · Jun 8, 2012

.......a handwritten demand to the court for $500 billion in damages.

Yeah.....I'd say this is pretty dang Strange.

AMonger · Jun 8, 2012

Brisco said:
Yeah.....I'd say this is pretty dang Strange.

That, too.

Tennesseahawk · Jun 8, 2012

So this measly magistrate says that since these buffoons have the right to impound a vehicle for the public good, there is nothing that says they have to give it back? Lesson 1... don't let the buffoons take your vehicle. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. In this case, the law sux!

Turtle · Jun 9, 2012

The article is a bit misleading. It's not a ruling, it's a recommendation based on the initial screening of the case. The biggest problem is that it was filed in federal court instead of state court. She filed in federal court in order bring claims under the Fourth Amendment for improper search and seizure; under the Fourteenth Amendment for violation of the Equal Protection Clause; and under the Ninth Amendment for violation of her inalienable rights. Now she has to prove those claims.

Must be a real slow news day over at newspaper.com, because the headline and the first sentence are both factually wrong. The judge didn't rule much, other than the case should not be heard and that it be thrown out as frivolous, since she didn't make her case on any of her claims.

She was in an accident and was in the hospital for about a month. The police had her car towed to the impound lot rather than leave it in a wrecked condition on the side of the road. She has a troubled history with the impound lot where her vehicle was taken, and apparently thinks they sold her vehicles. But the police are entitled to tow the vehicle in that situation. It is not a Fourth Amendment improper seizure. Her complaint isn't about the police having the right to tow the vehicle, but attempts to use the Fourth Amendment as a means to reacquire her property. The problem there is, the Fourth Amendment protects an individual’s interest in retaining
possession of property but not the interest in regaining possession of property. Meaning, you have to pay the towing and impounding fees if you want your car back. In order to use the Fourth Amendment in federal court, your claim must be facially plausible. Not having enough money to pay the tow and impound fees is hardly a plausible violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The case will be recommended to be thrown out if it a frivolous lawsuit, which by all indications hers is.

She also filed the claim under the Equal Protection Clause, which prevents states from making distinctions that (1) burden a fundamental right; (2) target a suspect class; or (3) intentionally treat one individual differently from others similarly situated without any rational basis.” But she offered no evidence of any of those things other than the impound people hate her.

In the Ninth Amendment Due Process, the judge rejected that outright, but even gave her the benefit of the doubt that the city in allowing for Due Process to be violated by her not being notified. But in that case she has to prove the City of Columbus intentionally withheld notification. "The mere fact that Plaintiff had poor experiences with the towing of a vehicle she previously owned is not enough for the Court to reasonably conclude that the City of Columbus has adopted an implicit custom or policy that encourages its employees to violate Plaintiff’s federal rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to satisfy the requisite pleading standards for municipal liability."

From the judge's Recommendation:
To properly state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a plaintiff must satisfy the
basic federal pleading requirements set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Although this pleading standard does not require “‘detailed factual allegations,’ . . . [a] pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ (calling people names and coming to conclusions based on assumption and conjecture) or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,’” (he done me wrong and I'm mad) is insufficient.

Furthermore, a complaint will not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” (He stole my valve stem cap. I know he did. I just know it!). Instead, to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter .

Basically, she failed to state anything for which she could be granted relief, and failed to state why her rights were violated using any plausible facts.

It doesn't help her case in the frivolous arena when she is seeking $500 billion with a B in compensatory damages, because she is out that much money as a result of not having access to her car, and therefore should be compensated for it, and for seeking $20 million in punitive damages, to really teach those "impound lot skalawags" a lesson.

Plus, in a "you can't make this up" attempt at facial plausibility, she claims that Shawn Carter (“Jay-Z”) and Sean Combs (“P. Diddy”) are involved in the seizure of her car for the purposes of human trafficking. The judge ruled that, "these allegations do not support her attempt to state a facially plausible claim."