Humboldt County Seeks Dismissal of Federal Lawsuit, Hearing Set for 2026

Humboldt County is pushing to shut down a federal civil rights lawsuit before it reaches trial, filing a motion to dismiss that targets allegations its cannabis abatement program has saddled property owners with unconstitutional fines. A hearing on the county's motion is scheduled for June 3, 2026, according to a PACER court listing flagged by local court reporter John Chiv.

The lawsuit at the center of the dispute is a class action filed by the nonprofit Institute for Justice in early October on behalf of Miranda property owners Corrine and Doug Thomas, who were later joined by three additional plaintiffs. The complaint names the County of Humboldt, the Board of Supervisors, the Humboldt County Planning and Building Department, and department director John Ford as defendants. Fines and penalties assessed against the Thomases, Blu Graham, Rhonda Olsen, and other residents prompted the Institute for Justice to file after the cases received coverage in the Redheaded Blackbelt.

The suit alleges the county's post-legalization enforcement machinery is unconstitutional on five general counts, including violations of the due process and excessive fines clauses. Plaintiffs contend property owners faced hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties tied to cannabis cultivation, sometimes based on years-old satellite images with no on-the-ground investigation, and sometimes imposed because prior owners had grown marijuana even though current owners had no involvement. Hearings were delayed for years while fines continued to accrue, according to the complaint, often forcing settlements under pressure.

On November 23, Humboldt County urged the Northern District of the United States District Court to dismiss the suit. The county's motion argues that plaintiffs' alleged injuries are "speculative" and "hypothetical," and that each plaintiff received both a Notice of Code Enforcement Appeal Hearing and a Notice of Administrative Civil Penalty Appeal Hearing. "None can allege a procedural due process violation on these ordinances or the facts alleged," the motion states, adding that all claims by the plaintiffs "fail substantially."

The county also asserts that the individual defendants cannot be sued in their personal capacities. Local attorney Denson explained the position: "The Supervisors have legal immunity as individuals because they were legislating when they created the abatement program, and John Ford because he works for the county. The county can be sued, but not the individuals. This is generally true, but if the individuals do really bad things under color of official status, they can be sued."

The Institute for Justice case is not the only federal lawsuit the county is contending with. Ray Christie filed a separate federal lawsuit against the County of Humboldt, former Humboldt County Sheriff's Office Deputy Travis Mendes, former Humboldt Deputy District Attorney Adrian Kamada, and Sheriff Honsal. Chiv first reported on the Christie lawsuit on December 2, 2025, with follow-up posts on December 8 and December 16. As of his December 16 post, Humboldt Deputy County Counsel Joel Campbell-Blair was representing three of the four defendants. Larson LLP partner Rick Richmond is representing Christie, and the case has been assigned to Judge Noel Wise at the San Jose location of the federal court.

Chiv, who reported on March 9 that the county filed its motion to dismiss the Christie lawsuit, obtained the county's 15-page filing. His assessment was pointed: "Some attorneys are better at writing motions and being clear. The County's 15 page motion fails with both criteria. Between incredulity and laughter, getting through the motion this evening was impossible."

The county's motion also references Adrian Kamada's employment history, stating on page 3 that Kamada was "allegedly fired from the District Attorney's Office in 2020 for 'violating office policy and procedure.'" Chiv reported Kamada's departure from the Humboldt County DA's office in June 2020 but said he could not get former District Attorney Maggie Fleming to confirm the specific language used in the county's motion. Kamada is asserting absolute prosecutorial immunity in the case.

The Institute for Justice litigation has already traveled to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed a district court dismissal of the plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. IJ attorney Jared McClain called it "a critical step toward dismantling Humboldt County's unconstitutional enforcement regime." The June 3 hearing will test whether the county's latest motion to dismiss can end the Christie matter before it reaches that same appellate threshold.