Federal Court Dismisses Wide-Ranging Retaliation and Discrimination Lawsuit Against California City and Fire Department

A federal judge in the Northern District of California has dismissed a pro se lawsuit brought by a property owner against the City of Marina, its fire department, and several city officials, arising out of code enforcement actions taken against multiple properties he owned in the city.

The plaintiff, Dr. Ayman Adeeb, a contractor and dentist, alleged that the City of Marina and its agents engaged in a coordinated campaign of retaliation and discrimination after he filed public records requests and complained about what he characterized as unequal code enforcement practices. According to the complaint, Adeeb owned or controlled several properties in Marina and claimed that city officials targeted those properties with citations, fines, unsafe-to-occupy notices, and red tags in response to his requests under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

The lawsuit alleged that, three days after Adeeb submitted a CPRA request in January 2025 seeking internal communications and inspection records, the City issued an “Unsafe to Occupy” notice for two units at one of his properties. In the weeks that followed, he alleged additional inspections and citations, including reinspection fees exceeding $118,000. He also alleged that another property was red-tagged in February 2025 for bathroom and kitchen violations, despite having previously passed inspection in 2022. Adeeb claimed the enforcement actions caused tenants to vacate, disrupted construction plans, and resulted in financial losses and emotional distress.

Adeeb initially filed the case in state court, and the city removed it to federal court. His first amended complaint asserted more than twenty causes of action, including First Amendment retaliation, equal protection violations, substantive and procedural due process claims, excessive fines, unconstitutional takings, civil conspiracy, Fair Housing Act violations, § 1983 Monell claims against the city, and multiple state-law causes of action.

In a lengthy order, the district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims. With respect to the claims against the City of Marina itself, the court found that Adeeb failed to plausibly allege municipal liability under Monell. While he asserted that enforcement actions were coordinated across multiple departments, the court concluded he did not identify any specific city policy, custom, or official decision that caused the alleged constitutional violations, nor facts showing that city supervisors directed or knowingly permitted unlawful conduct.

The court also dismissed Adeeb’s First Amendment retaliation claims, finding that he did not plausibly allege that his public records requests were a substantial or motivating factor behind the enforcement actions. The court noted that exhibits attached to the complaint showed the city had identified code violations at some of the properties before the CPRA request was submitted, undermining the claim that enforcement actions were retaliatory.

Adeeb’s substantive due process claims were dismissed on the grounds that property code enforcement is governed by more specific constitutional provisions, including the Takings Clause, and that he failed to allege facts showing enforcement actions were arbitrary or unrelated to public safety. His procedural due process claims were also dismissed, with the court finding that the plaintiff received notice of violations and had access to administrative appeal procedures under the municipal code.

The court rejected Adeeb’s equal protection claims under both protected-class and “class of one” theories. Although Adeeb alleged discrimination based on Middle Eastern ancestry and pointed to neighboring properties he claimed were not cited, the court found the allegations conclusory and insufficient to show intentional discrimination or that comparator properties were similarly situated in all material respects.

Claims under the Fair Housing Act were dismissed for similar reasons, as the complaint did not plausibly allege that enforcement actions were taken because of the plaintiff’s national origin. The court also dismissed claims alleging excessive fines and unconstitutional takings, concluding that the allegations did not satisfy the applicable legal standards for either claim.

Adeeb’s civil conspiracy claims under federal law were dismissed because the court found no adequately pleaded underlying constitutional violation. The court also dismissed all state-law claims, finding that Adeeb failed to allege exhaustion of available administrative remedies or facts establishing an exception to the exhaustion requirement.

The dismissal was entered with leave to amend, and the court gave Adeeb 28 days to file a further amended complaint. The order stated that failure to do so would result in dismissal of all claims with prejudice. Here is a copy of the decision.