I need to talk to a constitutional lawyer for a complex case in California

Blackstormhorse

Blackstormhorse

New Member
Jurisdiction
California

Overview of a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Government Agencies for Business Destruction & Constitutional Violations

For over a decade, a business owner has been engaged in a legal battle against a state agency responsible for managing public lands and a county prosecutor's office. The lawsuit alleges a pattern of selective enforcement, constitutional violations, and unlawful destruction of a business that provided public access to state parks.

Key Legal Issues & Allegations

1. Unlawful Regulation & Abuse of Power

  • The agency enforced a rule that was never properly enacted as law—what is known as an "underground regulation"—to block the business from operating, despite previously allowing it.
  • This regulation violates the Non-Delegation Doctrine, as it gives the agency law-making, law-enforcing, and financial authority, exceeding its legal power.
  • The Separation of Powers Doctrine is also implicated, as the agency is acting as legislator, enforcer, and financial beneficiary.

2. Selective Enforcement & Retaliation

  • The agency permitted other similar businesses to operate without interference, but selectively enforced illegal restrictions against this business alone.
  • The lawsuit alleges this was a targeted retaliation for challenging the agency's policies, violating the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment).
  • The agency removed a citation from the court docket, preventing the business owner from contesting it, violating the right to petition the government (1st Amendment).

3. Violation of a Federal Consent Decree

  • The agency was already under a federal court order (a consent decree) to ensure fair public access to state parks, including for disabled individuals.
  • The lawsuit claims the agency has violated this agreement by systematically eliminating rental horse services, thereby denying access to individuals without private horses, including disabled riders.

4. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Violations

  • The lawsuit alleges the agency's enforcement actions violate the ADA by denying reasonable accommodations for individuals who require horses for accessibility in state parks.

5. Financial & Business Destruction

  • The business operated legally for over 13 years and had partnerships with luxury resorts, tourism companies, and nonprofits.
  • Due to the agency's enforcement actions, the business was forced to shut down, resulting in millions of dollars in losses, lost contracts, and irreparable harm.

Legal Actions Taken

The plaintiff has filed multiple federal legal claims, including:
✅ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – Violation of civil rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
✅ 42 U.S.C. § 1985 – Conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights through collusion between government officials.
✅ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – Denying access to public spaces for individuals who require accommodations.
✅ Monell Claim – Holding the government agencies liable for a pattern of unconstitutional enforcement.
✅ First Amendment Retaliation – Suppressing business activities due to legal challenges against the agency.
✅ Takings Clause Violation (5th Amendment) – Destroying a business without just compensation.

Additionally, a motion has been filed to enforce the federal consent decree and hold the agency in contempt of court for failing to comply.

Current Status & Next Steps

  • The lawsuit seeks damages of $30 million for financial losses and business destruction.
  • A temporary restraining order and injunction have been filed to stop further unlawful enforcement.
  • If successful, this case could set a major precedent for regulatory overreach and ADA enforcement in public parks.

Why This Matters

This lawsuit raises important questions about government accountability and access to public lands. Should state agencies have unchecked power to enforce rules without legislative approval? Should public lands be restricted in a way that disproportionately benefits a small group while excluding the general public? This case could impact business owners, public access advocates, and disability rights supporters nationwide.
 

Attachments

Lawyers (at least the good ones) don't have staff lurking on message boards sites like this looking for clients because it's both inefficient and in at least a few states doing that can result in a lawyer facing disciplinary action under the rules of conduct for lawyers by contacting people to solicit them as clients that way. You need to make some appointments with lawyers in your state who handle civil rights and other governmental violations of your rights. Some the issues you outlined are state law issues, not federal ones.

If you have already filed court complaints and motions on this by yourself that's going to make harder to find a lawyer willing to take the case the now. Pro se litigants often make mistakes that would hobble the lawyer in providing proper representation because the lawyer will be stuck with what the prospective client has already done. As a result, a lot of lawyers will not want to step into something the client has already started.

If you consult a few lawyers and they tell you that you don't have a good claim or your claim is weak that should tell you that your prospects of winning this are not very good. I've seen many pro se litigants and potential clients over the years who vastly overestimate both the strength of the case and the potential damages they can realistically expect to get from it.

Finally, there is an extra problem when you are suing a state for money damages. The 11th Amendment generally prohibits suits against states in federal courts, though there are exceptions to it. The prohibition is especially difficult for a plaintiff to overcome when the claim is for money damages. In most lawsuits against a state for money damages the case will be dismissed unless the law of the state involved has waived immunity for the particular type of claim at issue. States generally waive immunity for many tort claims (personal injury and property damage claims, etc). If the state hasn't waived immunity for the claim filed there are only a relatively types of money actions that can be brought against in a federal court. The amendment does not, however, though prohibit suits for money damages in federal court against cities and counties. Citizens may bring non monetary claims against the states in federal court, however e.g. injunction actions, etc. when authorized by federal law. These complexities make it particularly important to have a lawyer familiar with suing states in federal court if the plaintiff wants his/her best shot at avoiding dismissal.
 
As mentioned by another poster, many of these issues are probably not suitable for a Federal case.

Although the US Constitution creates a federal government with separation of powers for the 3 branches, it does not mandate how state governments or state constitutions are set up with regard to that structure. There is a Non-Delegation Doctrine (to some degree) that has been applied to the US Federal government, that Federal doctrine probably has no affect on the California state government and its constitution. So many of these claims seem more appropriate in California Courts rather than Federal Court.

There could be some exceptions that might apply to Federal Courts, such as the equal protection clause and due process clause of the 14th amendment of the US constitution, as mentioned in your lawsuit. But not sure that the Federal Courts would have jurisdiction over what constitutes a "legal enactment of a California law" since that would be defined by the California state constitution and its laws.

Claiming that teaching horsemanship is a form of protected speech under the US Constitution sounds like a big stretch to me, since they are banning all rental services in state parks.

Maybe the ADA claim would be considered a Federal matter, but not sure how strong that case is. I am not disabled, but there is no way you are getting me up on a horse just to tour a state park. That sounds like a good way to become disabled, when not disabled starting out.
 
Mark_A said:
Maybe the ADA claim would be considered a Federal matter, but not sure how strong that case is.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's worth remembering that the ADA does not apply in every situation and where it does apply all it requires is that business or government entity provide a means of access for the disabled to be able to use the facilities in much the same way as other persons rather than the specific means demanded by the disabled person. The key point here being that the park visitor does not get to compel the park to prove the exact form of access he or she desires.

If access on horseback is not allowed for anyone and there is some way the state can make the park accessible for disabled persons to enjoy the park that doesn't involve horses that typically will be sufficient. As much as as you might like to insist that it must be available by horseback to save your business that's not the lens through which ADA claims are viewed. Again, the disabled person typically cannot dictate the form of access the venue must offer. If what is offered is sufficient to allow the disabled person to access and enjoy the park similar to other visitors that's all that that is required.
 
Tax Counsel said:
I agree. It's worth remembering that the ADA does not apply in every situation and where it does apply all it requires is that business or government entity provide a means of access for the disabled to be able to use the facilities in much the same way as other persons rather than the specific means demanded by the disabled person. The key point here being that the park visitor does not get to compel the park to prove the exact form of access he or she desires.

If access on horseback is not allowed for anyone and there is some way the state can make the park accessible for disabled persons to enjoy the park that doesn't involve horses that typically will be sufficient. As much as as you might like to insist that it must be available by horseback to save your business that's not the lens through which ADA claims are viewed. Again, the disabled person typically cannot dictate the form of access the venue must offer. If what is offered is sufficient to allow the disabled person to access and enjoy the park similar to other visitors that's all that that is required.
Click to expand...
I suspect that what he is saying is that the park trails are not paved and therefore not accessible for someone in a wheelchair, and that horseback is the answer to that. I don't agree with that logic, since horseback riding can be quite dangerous, and not suitable for a disabled person. Additionally, I personally believe that required accommodations for handicapped access should have reasonable limits, and this is not one that I think is valid.
 
Thanks for your input here are some more documents. Horses are my life and they deserve to have jobs too. I could teach you to ride like the wind. Then you would understand why I am fighting so hard to win this...
 

Attachments

Blackstormhorse said:
Thanks for your input here are some more documents. Horses are my life and they deserve to have jobs too. I could teach you to ride like the wind. Then you would understand why I am fighting so hard to win this...
Click to expand...

I can appreciate your passion for horses and wanting to provide a service to disabled customers. But your passion for it isn't a factor in determining what kind of access must be provided under the ADA. Moreover, you may have a standing issue if your are not yourself disabled and need assistance accessing the park trails as you are not the one that needs accommodation to use the park. If you lack standing that will lead to a very fast (by judicial time standards) dismissal of the case. Even if you get past the standing issue, you have the problem I discussed before: the state is not required to provide the exact form of access you wish. If the state is able to meet the requirement for disabled access by some other means providing that means of access is all that the law requires.
 
stealthy1 said:
p/x might be worth perusing...
Click to expand...

Here it is:

Blackstormhorse

Thread 'Reining in the Law, CCR-4331 Unconstitutional and Discriminatory'

Introduction

S R, owner of Seahorse Equestrian, has endured over 13 years of harassment by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), which has arbitrarily enforced CCR §4331. This regulation severely impacts Mr. horse rental business and has caused immense financial and emotional harm. The DPR's actions have deprived Mr. of his due process rights and discriminated against him by selectively enforcing the regulation while allowing other commercial activities within state parks, such as bicycle rentals, to continue without interference.

This appeal...
 
Blackstormhorse said:
Thank you...
Click to expand...
Prior to the California Department of Parks and Recreation banning your horse rental business operating in State Parks, did you at any time have a concessions contract with them? From what I understand they normally charge a concessions fee, or a percent of the revenue earned from the concession, to be paid to the Department.

How are concession rents determined?
The Department periodically conducts economic feasibility studies to establish minimum acceptable rents. Most concession opportunities are offered through a public Request for Proposals (RFP) or bid process, which establishes fair market rent for the specific concession opportunity. State park concession rent is paid by a flat rate or a percentage of the concession's gross sales, whichever sum is greater.
Click to expand...
www.parks.ca.gov

Questions and Answers about Concessions

California State Parks
www.parks.ca.gov www.parks.ca.gov

Did they give any reason why they banned horse rental businesses from the park? I can think of some possible reasons, such as liability of the state if someone falls from a horse and is injured, but was wondering if they gave any reason.
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top