DAM ARP SQ: A L O 114 W. Magnolia ST., Ste. 425 - Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 738-7273 - Facsimile: (360) 392-3936

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PIERCE HEIDI I. DOWNEY, individually and ex rel. Case No.: 10-2-07721-4 all similarly situated TAXPAYERS of APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY Washington State and Pierce County; DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Plaintiffs, WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND STATUTORY WRIT OF REVIEW, AND vs. COMPLAINT PIERCE COUNTY; PIERCE COUNTY AUDITORS OFFICE; PIERCE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE HEARING EXAMINER; and PIERCE COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES DIVISION; Defendants. JURISDICTION, PARTIES, AND VENUE
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action. 2. Petitioner-Appellant-Plaintiff HEIDI I. DOWNEY (Downey) resides in Pierce County and is the owner-guardian of the dog at issue, Blizzard, who was declared dangerous by Pierce Countys Animal Services Division on Aug. 13, 2009 (CAD # 091030925 and CALI #11906), a decision she timely appealed to the Pierce County Auditors designee Stephen Greer, and then timely appealed to the Pierce County Hearing Examiners deputy Terrence McCarthy, and then timely sought reconsideration, APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR WRITS, AND COMPLAINT - 1
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
OF
A D A M P. K A R P , E S Q .
114 W. Magnolia St., Ste. 425 Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 738-7273 Facsimile: (360) 392-3936 adam@animal-lawyer.com
upon which the designation was upheld and reconsideration remained denied in his
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
written decision of Mar. 11, 2010. 3. Downey brings this suit also on behalf of co-Plaintiffs Taxpayers of the State of Washington and Pierce County and all similarly situated. 4. Defendant Pierce County is a political entity created under the state constitution. The Pierce County Animal Services Division, Pierce County Auditor, and Pierce County Office of the Hearing Examiner are administrative agencies of Pierce County. 5. Defendants use taxes paid for by Downey and Taxpayers to enact, enforce, police, implement, impose, regulate, and permit activities described and proscribed by Title 6
10
PCC, or are charged with the ability to enforce, police, implement, impose, regulate, and
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
permit activities covered under Title 6 PCC, to issue (potentially) dangerous dog designations, and issue penalties and constitutional restraints under Title 6 PCC and Title 1 PCC. 6. Downey seeks judicial review of the dangerous animal designation as to Blizzard, as well as the decisions upholding it viz., that of Greer and of McCarthy. 7. The decisions of Greer and McCarthy were quasi-judicial or judicial in nature. 8. The Pierce County Superior Court has jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Animal Services Division, Auditor and Hearing Examiner pursuant to RCW 7.16.040 and PCC 6.07.015(E)(4), PCC 6.07.010(E)(4), and the state constitution.
21
9. This matter is properly venued.

22 23 24 25
10. This petition for a statutory right of appeal under PCC 6.07.015(E)(4), statutory writ of review and/or constitutional writ of certiorari is timely made. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR WRITS, AND COMPLAINT - 2
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
OF
11. On Aug. 13, 2009, Downeys dog Blizzard was declared dangerous by the Pierce
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
County Animal Services Division, thereby immediately imposing restraints on Downeys dog and Downeys liberty without a determination of probable cause, warrant, or similar order by a neutral and detached magistrate, violating Downeys constitutional rights by permitting what amounts to a warrantless seizure without lawful exception to the warrant requirement, prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and the Washington Constitution, Art. I 7. 12. The restraints attending the designation constituted a seizure of Downeys property, an unlawful taking, and infringed upon her liberty and property interests without due
10
process.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
13. Though issued a dangerous animal designation, the Pierce County Auditor sent Downey a packet on Aug. 25, 2009 informing her of the procedure for appealing a potentially dangerous animal declaration, and indicating she had to pay $125 as a mandatory fee to seek review for her first appeal to the Auditors Designated Administrative Official, and pay another $250 as a mandatory fee to seek review for her second appeal to the Pierce County Hearing Examiner. 14. Downey timely sought review of the adverse designation before the Pierce County Auditors designee Stephen Greer, paying the mandatory $250 fee of PCC 6.07.015(E)(1). Following a hearing on Sept. 9, 2009 before Greer, on Sept. 30, 2009,
21
Greer upheld a Potentially Dangerous Animal designation against Blizzard while

22 23 24 25
purportedly following PCC 6.07.010(E)(1-3). 15. PCC 6.07.010(E)(2-3) and PCC 6.07.015(E)(2-3) are unconstitutional facially and as applied to Downey, and deficient with respect to application of an erroneous burden and APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR WRITS, AND COMPLAINT - 3
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
OF
standard of proof that cannot be cured by appellate review.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
16. On Oct. 8, 2009, Downey completed and filed her Appeal to Pierce County Hearing Examiner of DA/PDA Decision with the proper entity and paid $250 to the Pierce County Auditor in relation to challenging Greers adverse designation concerning her dog Blizzard as a Potentially Dangerous Animal, as provided by PCC 6.07.010(E)(3). 17. Thereafter, Pierce County Animal Control/Auditor agents contacted Downey and demanded that she pay another $250 in order to appeal a Dangerous Animal declaration pertaining to Blizzard, even though Greers decision only upheld Blizzards status as potentially dangerous. Threatened with impound, euthanasia, and other administrative or
10
criminal repercussions, on Oct. 14, 2009, Downey paid another $250 to the Pierce
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
County Auditor in relation to challenging the adverse designation concerning her dog Blizzard. 18. On Oct. 26, 2009, without conducting another hearing and without allowing Downey to submit new evidence or argument, Greer amended his administrative review decision to uphold the determination that Blizzard was not a potentially dangerous animal, but a dangerous animal, claiming the amendment was necessary to correct what amounted to merely a clerical error. 19. The apparent absence of subpoena powers statutorily-afforded to Downey in a challenge before the Auditor violates due process and Mansour v. King Cy., 131 Wash.App. 255
21
(I, 2006).
22 23 24 25
20. The failure to record the proceeding before the Auditor also violates due process. 21. Downey then timely sought review of Greers determinations before the Pierce County Hearing Examiners deputy examiner Terrence McCarthy, paying the mandatory $500 APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR WRITS, AND COMPLAINT - 4
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
OF
fee per PCC 6.07.015(E)(3).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
22. Following a hearing on Nov. 18, 2009, on Jan. 26, 2010, McCarthy upheld Greers decision, finding that Blizzard was a dangerous dog, purportedly relying on PCC 6.07.015(E)(3), PCC 1.22.090(G), and PCC 1.22.080(B)(2)(b). 23. On Feb. 4, 2010, Downey then timely filed a motion for reconsideration of McCarthys decision, which was denied on Mar. 11, 2010. 24. PCC 6.07.015(E)(3) is unconstitutional facially and as applied to Downey, and deficient with respect to application of an erroneous burden and standard of proof that cannot be cured by appellate review.
10
25. PCC 1.22.090(G) is unconstitutional facially and as applied to Downey, and deficient
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
with respect to application of an erroneous burden and standard of proof that cannot be cured by appellate review. 26. In addition to the above allegations, Downey challenges all findings and conclusions of the Animal Services Division, Greer, and McCarthy as unconstitutional, erroneous, arbitrary and capricious, and/or ultra vires. 27. The dangerous animal appeal procedure outlined in Ch. 6.07 PCC is constitutionally deficient and in violation of Mansour v. King Cy., 131 Wash.App. 255 (I, 2006), violating Downeys and the Taxpayers constitutional rights. 28. The requirement of prepaying for the right of due process (viz., $250 and $500, as
21
described above) also violates Downeys and the Taxpayers constitutional rights.
22 23 24 25
29. Further, Downey challenges, facially and as applied, the constitutionality of the terms and phrases inflicts, kills, severe injury, unprovoked, and off the property where its owner resides, as used in PCC 6.02.010(N) and against Blizzard. APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR WRITS, AND COMPLAINT - 5
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
OF
30. Downey also challenges the designation issued on Aug. 13, 2009 as lacking probable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
cause, due to insufficient and inconsistent evidence that the elements of PCC 6.02.010(N) were met. 31. Downey challenges PCC 6.07.015(E)(4) as prescribing a vague and standardless appeal proceeding before the Pierce County Superior Court, thereby violating her constitutional rights. 32. The standard of proof that should have been applied was clear and convincing, with the burden of proving each element, including the absence of provocation, on the County, given the quasi-criminal nature of this predicate hearing and potential forfeiture of
10
Blizzard occasioned by any violation or attempt to comply with the significant

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
restrictions of keeping that dog as imposed by Title 6 PCC. 33. The rule of lenity applies to dangerous designations given the criminal repercussions, forfeiture provisions, civil liabilities, and governmental restraints imposed on Downey should the designation be upheld. 34. Downey suffered and continues to suffer damages and costs in the form of appeal fees, expert testimony, litigation costs, emotional distress, loss of use, constitutional injury, attorneys fees, and other compensatory damages to be proved at trial. CLAIMS/CAUSES OF ACTION/ERROR BELOW 35. CLAIM I - Statutory Appeal. The decisions of the Animal Services Division, Greer,
21
and McCarthy, inter alia, constituted clear errors of law, were ultra vires, exceeding
22 23 24 25
their jurisdictions, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, and/or based upon an inappropriate standard and burden of proof, and lack of subpoena powers at the Auditor appeal level. APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR WRITS, AND COMPLAINT - 6
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
OF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
36. CLAIMS II & III - Alternative Statutory or Constitutional Writ. In the alternative that Downeys full rights to a constitutional procedure to challenge the dangerous animal designation at her first contested, fact-finding hearing are not preserved by exercising her statutory right of appeal under PCC 6.07.015(E)(4), then Downey alleges she has no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, or adequate remedy of law. 37. Downey jointly seeks a constitutional writ of certiorari and/or statutory writ of review to be issued directing the Auditor and Hearing Examiner to transmit the entire record of the proceedings docketed under caption In re: Heidi Downey, Appellant to this court and Downey. Such writ is necessary to facilitate judicial review and to ascertain the
10
reasonableness and lawfulness of the conclusions and actions of the Animal Services
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Division, Greer, and McCarthy, and whether the each should be found to have exceeded jurisdiction or have rendered illegal, unlawful, erroneous, and void rulings. 38. CLAIM IV - Ancillary Relief. Downey also seeks such other ancillary relief as appropriate and just, including an order finding error with the decisions of the Animal Services Division, Greer, and McCarthy, vacating same. 39. CLAIMS V, VI, & VII - Taxpayer Derivative Suit (General & Special Injury) and Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) and Injunctive Relief. Downey seeks declaratory and injunctive relief striking the portions of the Pierce County Code
20
identified above as unconstitutional facially and/or as applied based on her statuses as a

21
generally-injured taxpayer representative and specially injured taxpayer.

22 23 24 25
40. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS: Downey expressly reserves the right to bring claims for damages and attorneys fees under 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1988, as well as state law. PRAYER APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR WRITS, AND COMPLAINT - 7
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
OF
WHEREFORE, Downey seeks relief against Defendants as follows:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
41. For processing of her statutory right of appeal as stated by PCC 6.07.015(E)(4), provided she reserves all rights to constitutional review provided under the constitutional writ of certiorari and/or statutory writ of review, which she seeks jointly. 42. For reimbursement of all appeal costs and attorneys fees incurred and invested in challenging the Animal Services Division designations before Greer and McCarthy, and now, the Superior Court; 43. For declaratory relief as stated above; 44. For injunctive relief as stated above;
10
45. For reasonable attorneys fees and other litigation-related costs as allowed by law under
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
grounds of equity (protecting constitutional principles, protecting common fund), or, in the alternative, statutory attorneys fees of $200; 46. For costs of suit; 47. For postjudgment interest at the highest rate permitted by law; 48. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated this Mar. 24, 2010. ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
Digitally signed by Adam P. Karp Location: WSBA No. 28622 Bellingham, WA 'Date: 2010.03.24 13:51:20 -07'00
_________________________________ Adam P. Karp, WSBA No. 28622 Attorney for Plaintiffs
APPEAL OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG DESIGNATIONS, PETITION FOR WRITS, AND COMPLAINT - 8
ANIMAL LAW OFFICES
OF

DAM ARP SQ: A L O 114 W. Magnolia ST., Ste. 425 - Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 738-7273 - Facsimile: (360) 392-3936

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DAM ARP SQ: A L O 114 W. Magnolia ST., Ste. 425 - Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 738-7273 - Facsimile: (360) 392-3936

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

9. This matter is properly venued.

Greer upheld a Potentially Dangerous Animal designation against Blizzard while

standard of proof that cannot be cured by appellate review.

fee per PCC 6.07.015(E)(3).

Blizzard occasioned by any violation or attempt to comply with the significant

identified above as unconstitutional facially and/or as applied based on her statuses as a

generally-injured taxpayer representative and specially injured taxpayer.

WHEREFORE, Downey seeks relief against Defendants as follows:

_________________________________ Adam P. Karp, WSBA No. 28622 Attorney for Plaintiffs

ANIMAL LAW OFFICES

Potrebbero piacerti anche