Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


November 28, 1990

CLIFFORD BERRY, et al., Plaintiffs,

Charles A. Legge, United States District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEGGE


 This is an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by indigent citizens of Alameda County, California. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have adopted and implemented a state constitutional limitation on real property taxes, Cal. Const. art. XIII A (1978) ("Proposition 13"), and are using that limitation in assessing taxpayers, in violation of plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs ask this court to declare that Proposition 13 is unconstitutional as applied to raising real estate tax revenues to pay for medical services for the poor in Alameda County, and to enjoin implementation of the tax limitation by defendants.


 The parties filed motions for summary judgment. This court then ruled *fn1" that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 ("the Act"), and principles of federal-state comity preclude a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over challenges to the implementation and assessment of tax limitations enacted into a state's constitution. Plaintiffs' additional allegation, that Proposition 13 was adopted in a procedurally unconstitutional manner, was denied for failure to state a claim. The court therefore ordered this action dismissed.

 However, before the court signed the order of dismissal, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, asserting that one week after this court's announced decision, the United States Supreme Court in Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33, 109 L. Ed. 2d 31, 110 S. Ct. 1651 (1990), expanded the scope of federal district courts' powers to intervene in the assessment and administration of state taxes, including state constitutional tax limitations. This court therefore vacated its decision and ordered additional briefing on the application of Missouri v. Jenkins to this case. The parties filed additional briefs and the matter was submitted for decision.

 Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the record of the case, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant authorities, this court concludes, for the reasons set forth below, that: (1) under the Act and principles of federal-state comity, this court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with California's tax limitation as requested by plaintiffs, and (2) the allegation that Proposition 13 was unconstitutionally adopted fails to state a claim. The issues are ones of law, and no fact questions are presented. Defendants' motion for summary judgment will therefore be granted and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied.


 Plaintiffs allege that their indigency qualifies them for certain medical benefits provided by California statutes. Specifically, they assert that they are entitled to receive an "adequate care entitlement" under the California Welfare and Institutions Code, *fn2" and an "equal care entitlement" under the California Health and Safety Code. *fn3" Money to pay for those entitlements is raised in part by each county from their general tax revenues, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 16700-16718 (Deering 1985).

 Defendants are the County of Alameda, its Board of Supervisors and its County Auditor. Defendants assess and administer state and local tax laws in Alameda County, including the tax limitation of Proposition 13, and determine and administer the county's health care budget.

 Proposition 13 was an amendment to the California constitution which was adopted by California voters on June 6, 1978 and became effective on July 1, 1981. Cal. Const. art. XIII A, § 5. Proposition 13 establishes that "the maximum ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property." Id., § 1.

 As a result of Proposition 13 and other financial limitations, plaintiffs allege that Alameda County "continues to receive inadequate funding for State mandated programs." *fn4" Plaintiffs allege that the effect of Proposition 13 has been to reduce the level of medical services furnished to indigent persons in Alameda County to a level substantially below that required by the state statutes. Plaintiffs' lengthy Amended Complaint can be distilled into three alleged violations of the United States Constitution. The first violation alleges that Proposition 13, and its implementation by Alameda County, constitute invidious and intentional economic discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. *fn5" The second alleges denial of due process and equal protection to indigent persons, because of the voter-initiative procedure used to adopt Proposition 13. *fn6" The third alleges a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the County Auditor. Plaintiffs' theory under the third allegation is that Cal. Gov't. Code § 29103 makes the County Auditor responsible for calculating the tax rates to be assessed by the Board of Supervisors; and an assessment based on Proposition 13 is an unconstitutional calculation of taxes, because it excludes appropriations from real property taxes for indigent medical benefits "as required by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." *fn7"

 Plaintiffs pray for injunctive and declaratory relief. They ask this court to declare that: the Proposition 13 tax limitation is unconstitutional as applied to the taxation of real property in Alameda County for purposes of funding medical benefits; and defendants have acted in excess and abuse of their discretion by implementing Proposition 13 in such a manner as to decrease the funding of those benefits. Plaintiffs seek an injunction "in the nature of a mandamus", commanding defendants not to limit real property taxes under Proposition 13 for purposes of funding state medical benefits.


 The principal issue raised by these summary judgment motions is whether a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims regarding the assessment and administration of property taxes under the limitation of Proposition 13.

 Defendants argue that the Act precludes this court from taking subject matter jurisdiction. *fn8" The Act reads in full:

The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.