Oregon Fire District Sued Over Trespass Order Excluding Resident from Fire Station Property

A resident of New Pine Creek, Oregon, has filed suit against the New Pine Creek Rural Fire Protection District, its fire chief, and its board chair, alleging that a trespass order barring him from district property violates his constitutional rights.

Mitchell Sagariballa Jr. filed the action in Lake County Circuit Court against the New Pine Creek Rural Fire Protection District, Fire Chief Geoff Pointere, and Board Chair Randy Lawson. According to the complaint, a Lake County sheriff’s deputy verbally issued Sagariballa a trespass or exclusion order on May 14, 2025. He alleges that on May 29, 2025, he received a formal letter from the district prohibiting him from entering or remaining on district property located at 11167 U.S. Highway 395 in New Pine Creek without written permission from the district. 

The complaint identifies the property as the district’s fire station, where emergency vehicles and equipment are housed and where all public meetings of the district are conducted. Sagariballa alleges the exclusion prevented him from attending those meetings in person and that the district declined to provide a virtual or telephone option. 

The complaint states:

• The exclusion order immediately deprived Plaintiff of access to public property and the ability to attend the public meetings held on site.
• At the time the exclusion order was issued, Plaintiff had not committed a criminal offense and was not cited, arrested, or charged with any crime.
• Plaintiff repeatedly contacted the Defendant with requests of resolution or the opportunity to contest the trespass order and was denied without proper cause or justification.
• The trespass order was issued without providing Plaintiff:
  • a. notice of a hearing;
  • b. any administrative appeal process; or
  • c. any meaningful opportunity to contest the exclusion.
• The exclusion order immediately deprived Plaintiff of access to public property and the ability to attend the public meetings held on site. Defendants were also unwilling to make accommodations for Plaintiff to attend virtually or via phone.
• Oregon courts recognize that access to public property implicates liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause when state action interferes with lawful presence on property open to the public.

The lawsuit does not identify the incident or conduct that prompted the trespass order. Publicly available sources reviewed in connection with the filing do not explain the factual basis for the district’s decision. No sheriff’s report, district statement, board minute, or public record currently available explains why the exclusion was issued.

The complaint asserts that the district’s actions violated procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under Oregon’s Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act as well as damages and attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and §1988. 

Among the relief requested, Sagariballa asks the court to declare the trespass order invalid and unconstitutional, prohibit the district from enforcing it, and order its removal from district records.

Here is a copy of the complaint: