In Their Opinion : Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

REGET v. LA CROSSE (February 8, 2010)

John Reget has operated an auto restoration and body shop business in La Crosse, Wisconsin for several decades. For almost as long, he and the City have been at odds. In 1980, the City condemned his building and gave him the funds to relocate and remodel his current building. In the early 1990s, the City cited Reget a number of times for ordinance violations pertaining to junk dealers. All the citations were ultimately dismissed. In the mid-1990s, the City threatened to rezone the area of Reget's current building. The move would have forced Reget to relocate yet again. The City backed down -- but only after Reget promised to comply with the ordinances, build a fence, and limit his nighttime operations. Both sides claim the other failed to live up to its bargain. Reget filed a lawsuit alleging a violation of his Equal Protection rights as a result of the City's selective enforcement of its ordinances. The district court granted summary judgment to the City. Reget appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Sykes affirmed. The Court noted that Reget's Equal Protection claim was of the class-of-one variety. For such a claim to prevail, a plaintiff must prove that he or she has been treated differently than others similarly situated and that no rational basis exists for such differentiation. The Court concluded that he failed to identify a similarly situated business with respect to any of his claims of discriminatory treatment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

AVILA v. PAPPAS (January 4, 2010)

Maria Avila was already in trouble. Her employer, the Cook County Treasurer's Office, was about to conduct a disciplinary hearing. Avila made it worse when she told one of her coworkers that she might "go postal." Her coworker advised her superiors. They not only added a disciplinary count for the implied threat and fired her but alerted the authorities. Avila was criminally prosecuted. The prosecutor charged a felony, taking the position that one of the targets of Avila's threat was a public official. Avila was acquitted, the court holding that he was not a public official. Avila filed suit against her superiors pursuant to §1983, alleging both constitutional violations and state law malicious prosecution. Although the court dismissed the federal counts, it retained the state law claim under supplemental jurisdiction and resolved it on the merits in favor of the defendants. Avila appeals the judgment on the state law claim.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Wood and Tinder vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction. The Court first addressed its jurisdiction. Although Avila asserted four federal law theories, the Court emphasized that a federal claim must have substance to create a basis for federal jurisdiction. The Court concluded that the federal claims -- substantive due process, conspiracy, failure to train, and equal protection -- were frivolous. The Court principally relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Albright and the Court's own decision in Newsome, holding that malicious prosecution does not violate the Constitution if state law recognizes it as a tort (which Illinois does).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

SRAIL v. VILLAGE OF LISLE (December 7, 2009)

The Oak View subdivision was built in the 1950s. Since its earliest days, a private utility company has provided its residents with water. The Village of Lisle developed its municipal water system in 1967. The municipal system has grown as developers have donated water mains serving new projects. Lisle also purchased a private water utility in 1980. Although both the municipal system and the Oak View system receive their water from the DuPage Water Commission, the Oak View system has insufficient pressure for firefighting. Residents of Oak View sued the Village, alleging that the Village violated the Equal Protection Clause by providing municipal water to some residents and not others. The court granted summary judgment to the Village. The residents appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Kanne and Sykes affirmed. The Court first noted that the residents are not members of a suspect class and they do not allege an infringement of a fundamental right. Therefore, the Court's review is on the rational basis test. Although the Court identified issues with the plaintiffs' status as a "class of one" and with an illegitimate animus requirement, it found it unnecessary to reach either issue. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Engquist, the Court stated that government activity which involves discretionary decision-making based on a number of objective criteria need not treat all persons equally. The Village's decisions over the years to build and extend its system were based on individual assessments made at those times. There is no clear standard that the Village used and that the Court could use to judge any departures therefrom. The Court concluded that it was doubtful that the residents' claim would survive the Engquist test. The Court went on, however, and concluded that the residents failed to establish an equal protection violation. First, they were unable to establish the existence of an appropriate comparator. Second, the cost of extending the system, the apparent lack of interest on the part of most residents, and the Village's desire to avoid competition with the private utility amounted to a rational basis for its conduct.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

HANES v. ZURICK (August 18, 2009)

Apparently, Stephen Hanes and his neighbors in Grayslake, Illinois have been unable to get along for quite some time. The feud has resulted in numerous complaints to the local police. According to Hanes' complaint that the Grayslake police officers denied him equal protection of the law, the police always blame Hanes and arrest him. He has been arrested at least eight times – and every charge was dropped. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint both for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The district court denied the officers' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, although it did not specifically mention qualified immunity. The officers appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Rovner, Wood and Williams affirmed. Because a ruling on the qualified immunity defense was a necessary basis for the Court's jurisdiction of the interlocutory appeal and because the district court did not specifically mention qualified immunity, the Court first addressed its jurisdiction. The qualified immunity issue was fully briefed below, the district court addressed both prongs of the qualified immunity inquiry, and the district court gave no indication that it intended not to rule on any issue presented. The Court was therefore satisfied that it had jurisdiction to consider the order rejecting a qualified immunity defense. On the merits, the Court first considered the constitutional violation prong. The Court started with its opinion in Hilton, which recognized a class-of-one equal protection claim for unequal police treatment. The Hilton plaintiffs did not survive summary judgment because they failed to show that the unequal treatment was the result of personal animus. Personal animus is alleged here. Although the Court concluded that a constitutional violation existed under Hilton, it did consider the officers' argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Engquist should prompt it to reconsider Hilton. In Engquist, the Supreme Court held that the class-of-one theory is not well-suited to the public employment context where government actors exercise "discretionary authority based on subjective, individualized determinations." The Court rejected the invitation to reconsider Hilton. It noted that although police officers enjoy broad discretion in their actions, their discretion is much more limited than that of a public employer. On the issue of whether the constitutional right was clearly established, the Court concluded that the officers were on notice as a result of Hilton.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

SCHOR v. CITY OF CHICAGO (August 13, 2009)

The City of Chicago passed an ordinance that prohibits the use of a mobile phone while driving unless it is used in conjunction with a "hands-free" device. Three individuals who were ticketed for violating the ordinance filed an action against the City, alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and Illinois law. The district court dismissed the claims and refused to allow an amendment to the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Rovner and Wood affirmed. The Court rejected the Fourth Amendment claim. The officers making the stops observed each plaintiff violating the ordinance. Those observations provided probable cause for the stop – and thus no Fourth Amendment violation. The Equal Protection Clause claim was a "class of the one" claim. To succeed on that claim, the Court stated, the plaintiffs had to show that they were treated differently and that there was no rational basis for the difference in treatment. Here, the drivers were treated differently than other drivers who were not using mobile phones. The basis for the differential treatment, however, was the violation of an ordinance -- clearly a rational distinction. The Court rejected the plaintiffs' Monell claims as well. A direct claim against a municipality must be based on an underlying constitutional violation, which is not present here. Finally, the Court concluded that the district court's refusal to allow an amendment to the complaint was not an abuse of discretion. In the amendment, the plaintiffs sought to include a claims that the ordinance violated their fundamental right to travel and a claim that the ordinance was void for vagueness. The plaintiffs failed to indicate how the ordinance infringed any right to travel or how its terms were so vague that an ordinary person could not understand.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

IDRIS v. CITY OF CHICAGO (January 5, 2009)

The City of Chicago (the City”) has installed cameras at intersections since 2003. They are used to identify drivers who fail to obey red lights. The ordinance makes the owner (or, in the case of a leased vehicle, the lessee) of the vehicle liable for the fine – regardless of who was driving at the time. A group of car owners brought suit. Each had been fined for a traffic violation. In each case, however, someone other than the car’s owner was driving the car at the time of the violation. The plaintiffs allege that the ordinance violates due process and equal protection. The court granted summary judgment for the City. Plaintiffs appeal.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Ripple and Rovner affirmed. The Court quickly disposed of plaintiffs’ substantive due process argument. It noted the absence of a fundamental liberty interest – a prerequisite for substantive due process. The Court then considered the enforcement system under the rational-basis doctrine. Again, it seemed to have little difficulty in finding the ordinance rational. The owner-liable system reduces the cost of enforcing the law and improves compliance with the law. The facts that it raises revenue and adopts a system different from the state system do not make it irrational. The distinction between owners and lessors is not discriminatory – it is, in fact, the rational approach. Finally, the Court rejected the plaintiffs’ procedural due process arguments. Defenses and objections must be made at a hearing and reviewed in state court before they can be the subject of a federal court proceeding.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

FLYING J INC. v. CITY OF NEW HAVEN (December 5, 2008)

Flying J develops and operates travel plazas for truck drivers and other travelers. It purchased 50+ acres in New Haven, Indiana (the “City”) to develop a new travel plaza. The City opposed the development and took the position that it was not allowed under the then-current zoning. Flying J ultimately prevailed in the Indiana state courts on its challenge to the City’s position. Undaunted, the City amended its zoning ordinance to limit developments of this type to two acres. The Flying J development was the only parcel affected by this limitation. The City held several public meetings on the amendment but never gave Flying J specific notice of them. In August of 2007, the City advised Flying J that its development must comply with the two acre rule. Flying J filed suit in September, alleging violations of its rights under the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. Flying J appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Bauer, Flaum and Williams affirmed. The Court first addressed the City’s position that the Court lacked jurisdiction under the principles of Williamson County. The Supreme Court in Williamson County held that takings claims in land use cases are not ripe until the local authority has reached a final decision, including a decision on a variance application and compensation. Courts have applied the doctrine to takings claims even when they are labeled as due process or equal protection claims. The Court noted that it has created an exception for claims alleging the malicious conduct of a government agent unrelated to a legitimate state objective. Flying J’s allegations of the City’s protracted litigation, its covert amendment to the ordinance, the ordinance’s application only to Flying J, and the potential conflicts of interest of several commission members fit its claim within that exception.

The Court next addressed whether Flying J stated a claim. Relying on its precedent in Wroblewski and Lauth, the Court identified the pleading standard for a class-of-one equal protection claim. In those cases, the plaintiff must negate any set of facts that provides a rational basis for the classification challenged. Animus of the defendant comes into play only after the plaintiff has pled facts that show the irrationality of the government’s conduct. Flying J does allege facts that would show that the City took its actions in response solely to Flying J’s development but it does not allege facts to establish that the zoning amendment was irrational. Flying J’s allegations therefore do not overcome the presumption of rationality the government enjoys in cases of this nature.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks