Cody Etherton v. City of Rainsville , 662 F. App'x 656 ( 2016 )

Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 1 of 14
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15147
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:14-cv-01832-KOB
CODY ETHERTON,
HOPE ETHERTON,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CITY OF RAINSVILLE,
NICK JONES,
BRANDON FREEMAN,
MELISSA LEDBETTER,
ROGER LINGERFELT,
JOSEPH GRAHAM,
DAVID HOLT,
RICHARD GIBSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
________________________
(September 26, 2016)
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 2 of 14
Before TJOFLAT, HULL and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Cody and Hope Etherton, appearing pro se, appeal the district court’s order
granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss their complaint. The Ethertons’
Complaint raised a variety of federal and state-law challenges to the application of
a municipal zoning ordinance to their property, a poultry and cattle farm located at
421 Kain Avenue in Rainsville, Alabama (“the Property”). Upon careful
consideration and a thorough review of the record, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment
In 2001, the City of Rainsville (“the City”) amended its Zoning Ordinance
to, inter alia, specifically prohibit poultry farming as a permitted use for
agricultural property in the City. 1 Rainsville Ordinance No. 3-19-01-B, § A.7.
Nonetheless, the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, permits a landowner to seek a
“special exception” allowing him to operate a poultry farm. Rainesville Zoning
Ordinance § 4-8-2 (including “chicken farms” within the list of uses that require a
special exception in an agricultural district). Id. In order to receive a special
1
The 2001 amendment states, in relevant part:
Agricultural uses [include] the raising of crops and livestock. There is
specifically prohibited as a permitted use hog farms, chicken farms, feed lots for
cattle and other similar types of farming where animals are concentrated in a
relatively small area or housed within a building.
Rainsville Ordinance No. 3-19-01-B, § A.7.
2
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 3 of 14
exception, a landowner has to file a special exception application, pay a $200
application fee, notify adjoining property owners of his application, and present his
application at a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Zoning
Ordinance § 7-4-3. After determining that the application is properly before it, the
Zoning Board of Adjustment may then grant or deny the special exception. Id.
Unsuccessful applicants may challenge the Board’s determination in state court.
Zoning Ordinance § 7-5.
Sections 5-2-2 and 5-2-4 of the Zoning Ordinance provide that non-
conforming uses of property existing at the time of an amendment to the Ordinance
may be continued (or be “grandfathered-in”) so long as certain requirements are
met. Rainsville Ordinance No. 3-19-01-B, § 8. Additionally, §§ 7-3 and 7-4-1 of
the Zoning Ordinance provide that an aggrieved landowner has the option of
challenging zoning decisions by the City’s “Administrative Officer” before the
Board of Adjustment. 2
B. Facts and Procedural History
2
Section 7-3 states, in relevant part:
Appeals to the Board of Adjustment concerning interpretation or
administration of this Zoning Ordinance or for Variance under this Zoning
Ordinance may be taken by any person aggrieved or by any officer, agency, or
bureau of the City of Rainsville affected by any decision of the Administrative
Officer.
Zoning Ordinance § 7-3. Section 7-4-1 states that the “Zoning Board of Adjustment” has the
power “[t]o hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement,
decision, or determination made by the Administrative Officer in the enforcement of this
Ordinance.” Zoning Ordinance § 7-4.
3
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 4 of 14
As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recount them
in detail. We include only the facts necessary to the discussion of the issues.
Harold and Kathy Owens owned and operated a cattle and poultry farm on the
Property prior to and following the 2001 amendment, and sold the Property to the
Ethertons in 2005 (along with all rights associated with the Property). The
Ethertons continued to operate the poultry and cattle farm.
The Ethertons decided to sell the Property in January 2014. In June 2014,
potential buyers Dale and Sherri Jones contracted to purchase the Property from
the Ethertons for $850,000. In July 2014, Richard Gibson, the City’s Revenue and
Zoning Officer, informed the Joneses that they would have to apply for a special
exception in order to raise chickens on the Property. As a result, the Joneses
became no longer interested in the Property, and the Ethertons released them from
their contract.
Also in 2014, Buddy and Tony Goolesby expressed interest in purchasing
the Property. The Goolesbys learned that while the Ethertons’ poultry-farming
operations were grandfathered-in under the Zoning Ordinance, this would not
extend to the Goolesbys. Instead, the Goolesbys would need to apply for a special
exception to operate a poultry farm on the Property. The Goolesbys stopped
negotiations with the Ethertons.
4
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 5 of 14
In August and September 2014, the Ethertons met with and wrote to City
officials including Zoning Officer Gibson, Mayor Nick Jones, and members of the
Rainsville City Council. The Ethertons took the position that it was unnecessary
for their potential purchasers to seek a special exception to operate a poultry farm
on the Property. The City officials disagreed. During one meeting, Mayor Jones
urged the Ethertons to themselves apply for a special exception; the Ethertons
refused.
On September 26, 2014, the Ethertons, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
complaint against the City, Mayor Jones, Zoning Officer Gibson, and members of
the Rainsville City Council. The Complaint was amended three times prior to its
dismissal in October 2015; in its final form, it asserted numerous claims arising
under federal and Alabama constitutional and statutory provisions.
The Etherton’s Complaint challenged, inter alia, Zoning Officer Gibson’s
determination (“Officer Gibson’s determination”) that after the Ethertons sold the
Property, the new owners would need a special exception in order to continue as a
poultry farm. They claimed that their non-conforming use of the Property was a
“vested right” that was transferrable to their successors and could not “be divested
without compensation.” They further claimed that the defendants’ decision—that
the new zoning ordinance would be enforced as to the new owners—interfered
with their attempts to sell the Property and forced the Property into foreclosure.
5
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 6 of 14
The district court dismissed all of the Ethertons’ claims. On appeal, the
Ethertons challenge the dismissal of their federal claims, and assert two new claims
for the first time.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
We review de novo a district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construing
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Butler v. Sheriff of Palm Beach
Cnty., 685 F.3d 1261, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). We also review de novo whether a
case is ripe for adjudication. Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1204 (11th Cir.
2006).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quotation
marks omitted). While the complaint need not contain “detailed factual
allegations,” the factual allegations must be enough “to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct.
1955, 1964-65 (2007). “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than
pleadings drafted by attorneys and are liberally construed.” Bingham v. Thomas,
654 F.3d 1171, 1175 (11th Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
III. ANALYSIS
6
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 7 of 14
A. Takings Claim
The Ethertons argue that the district court erred in dismissing their takings
claim because the defendants’ enforcement of the special exception requirement
caused them to lose their contract to sell their property. The Ethertons assert that
contractual rights are protected from government intrusion without due process,
and contend that defendants’ actions both infringed on their right to contract and
cost them all their “rights” in their contract with the Joneses (including their
“vested right” to its proceeds). 3
A landowner states a claim for a per se regulatory taking of his property
where he alleges that: (1) government action has denied him “all economically
beneficial or productive use of his property” (making it “worthless”) and (2) he
cannot obtain just compensation under state procedures or that available state
procedures are “inadequate.” Agripost, Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 195 F.3d 1225,
1231 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted). The district court correctly ruled
that the Complaint failed to state a claim that the Ethertons’ land was subject to
this type of taking, as there is no indication in the Complaint that Officer Gibson’s
determination stripped the Property of all productive use. The Ethertons’
3
At the time the Complaint was filed, the Property was already in foreclosure (although it
had not yet been sold). Officer Gibson’s determination—that new owners would need a special
exception—had already had an alleged impact. We conclude that whether or not appealing
Officer Gibson’s determination to the Zoning Board of Adjustment would strictly have been
futile, the impact was definite enough for the Ethertons’ claims to ripen even without a more
final or formal decision. We herein address the Ethertons’ claims solely on the merits.
7
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 8 of 14
subsequent failure to sell to two potential buyers does not suggest that the Property
was rendered worthless; indeed, the Complaint undercuts this notion by stating that
the Ethertons’ farm provides them with “lawful income” and that the Property
could be sold in a foreclosure sale, albeit at a “considerable discount.” 4
The Ethertons alternatively stress that the “taking” here was of their contract
with the Joneses, not of their Property per se. This Court has recognized that
contracts can be property subject to an unconstitutional taking. See Vesta Fire Ins.
Corp. v. Florida, 141 F.3d 1427, 1431 n.8 (11th Cir. 1998) (discussing insurance
contracts). However, the defendants’ enforcement of existing zoning law, enacted
in 2001, did not in itself “take” the Ethertons’ 2014 contract with the Joneses. It
simply discouraged the Joneses from moving forward by enforcing an existing
legal restriction on what they as new owners could do with the Property after
purchasing it unless they obtained a special exception. The defendants’ conduct
apparently did not affect the Jones contract’s enforceability; it was the Ethertons
who decided to release the Joneses from their obligations after the agreement was
4
We may also find that regulatory taking has occurred, even where property has not been
rendered worthless by a regulatory action. Factors we weigh in making this determination
include: (1) the economic impact of the challenged regulation on the landowner; (2) the extent to
which the regulation interferes with investment-backed expectations; and (3) the nature of the
challenged action. See Vesta Fire Ins. Corp. v. Florida, 141 F.3d 1427, 1431 (11th Cir. 1998)
(citing Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 106 S. Ct. 1018 (1986)). Given
that the City’s determination did not actually affect how the Ethertons themselves used the
Property, we cannot find a taking even weighing these factors.
8
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 9 of 14
already signed. We find no support for ruling that there was a “taking of a
contract” on these alleged facts in this particular case.
Accordingly, the Ethertons’ takings claim fails on the merits and was
properly dismissed.
B. Equal Protection Claim
To sufficiently state a “class of one” equal protection claim (one not based
on a plaintiff’s membership in a protected class), a plaintiff must allege that the
defendants “intentionally treated [him] differently from others similarly situated”
and “there [was] no rational basis for the disparate treatment.” Griffin Indus. v.
Irvin, 496 F.3d 1189, 1202 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). “[T]o
avoid constitutionalizing every state regulatory dispute, we are obliged to apply the
‘similarly situated requirement with rigor.’” Id. at 1207 (quoting E & T Realty v.
Strickland, 830 F.3d 1107, 1109 (11th Cir. 1987)). Furthermore, a “[m]ere error or
mistake of judgment when applying a facially neutral statute does not violate the
equal protection clause. There must be intentional discrimination.” E & T Realty,
830 F.3d at 1114 (“The requirement of intentional discrimination prevents
plaintiffs from bootstrapping all misapplications of state law into equal protection
claims.”).
The district court properly dismissed the Ethertons’ equal protection claim,
which is based on the different treatment between the Owneses and themselves.
9
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 10 of 14
The Ethertons’ Complaint, however, did not contain sufficient allegations that the
Owenses and the Ethertons were similarly situated. First, the Owenses owned the
Property and operated a poultry farm upon it before the passage of the 2001
Ordinance. Thus, the Owenses’ status (as “grandfathered in” owners) in 2005,
when they sold the Property to the Ethertons, was not the same as the Ethertons’
status in 2014, when they were negotiating to sell the Property to either the Joneses
or the Goolesbys. Second, the Complaint contains detailed allegations about
numerous discussion with City officials about the Joneses’ and the Goolesbys’
plans to purchase the Property and operate a poultry farm, but there are no similar
allegations that either the Owenses or the Ethertons sought the City’s input before
the 2005 sale of the Property or that the City knew of the Ethertons’ plans to
continue to use the Property to operate a poultry farm.
In any event, even if the Owenes and the Ethertons were similarly situated,
the Complaint does not plausibly allege that the City’s different treatment of them
was intentional, rather than the result of a mistake. The Complaint alleges merely
that the City enforced the special exception requirement against the Etherton’s
prospective purchasers, but not against the Ethertons as the Owenes’ purchaser.
But, bare allegations of unequal enforcement are not enough to state a “class of
one” equal protection claim. See Griffin Indus. v. Irvin, 496 F.3d at 1207; E & T
Realty, 830 F.3d at 1114.
10
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 11 of 14
C. Substantive Due Process Claim
The Ethertons argue that the district court erred in dismissing their
substantive due process claim because the defendants’ application of the special
exception requirement violated their fundamental liberty right to be free from
unauthorized governmental intrusion (which includes their right to contract). The
Ethertons stress that the defendants acted “arbitrar[ily] and capricious[ly],” and
that they unlawfully converted the Ethertons’ right to contract into a privilege and
“placed a fee thereon.”
We have held that “non-legislative deprivations of state-created rights,
which would include land-use rights, cannot support a substantive due process
claim, not even if the plaintiff alleges that the government acted arbitrar[il]y and
irrationally.” Greenbriar Village, LLC v. City of Mountain Brook, 345 F.3d 1258,
1263 (11th Cir. 2003). The Ethertons challenge an executive action enforcing a
zoning ordinance that implicates state-created land use rights; in this respect, it
does not give rise to substantive federal due process claims. See id. The City’s
determination also did not actionably burden the Ethertons’ right to contract with
the Joneses (or the Goolesbys) or any cognizable right they would have to the
proceeds of the contract they entered. This claim was properly dismissed.
D. Procedural Due Process Claim
11
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 12 of 14
The Ethertons argue that the district court erred in dismissing their
procedural due process claim because the defendants’ application of the special
exception requirement to the Property was “arbitrary” and violated their procedural
rights. The Ethertons stress that they were under no legal duty to pursue the
special exception process because this process “would violate their rights.” The
Ethertons also argue that they were not required to “exhaust[] administrative
remedies.”
A claim alleging a denial of procedural due process has three elements: “(1)
a deprivation of a constitutionally-protected liberty or property interest; (2) state
action; and (3) constitutionally-inadequate process.” Grayden v. Rhodes, 345 F.3d
1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2003). Importantly, to state a claim for violation of
procedural due process, a plaintiff must allege that the state refused to provide a
process sufficient to remedy the deprivation. See Watts v. Fla. Int’l Univ., 495
F.3d 1289, 1294 (11th Cir. 2007).
The district court correctly found that the Ethertons failed to state a
procedural due process claim. First, the challenged determination did not deprive
the Ethertons of a constitutionally-protected interest in the Property, as it did not
itself affect the Ethertons’ use of their property (it only required their successors to
seek an exception to operate a poultry farm). Second, to the extent that the
determination burdened some cognizable right related to the Ethertons’ contract
12
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 13 of 14
with the Joneses, procedures existed through which the Ethertons could have
sought a remedy; specifically, they could have challenged Officer Gibson’s
determination before the Zoning Board of Adjustment pursuant to §§ 7-3 and 7-4-1
of the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the Ethertons failed to state a viable claim that
they were denied procedural due process.
E. Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity protects government officials sued in their individual
capacities from liability for acting within the scope of their discretionary authority
where their conduct “violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional
rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Jordan v. Mosley, 487
F.3d 1350, 1354 (11th Cir. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). The immunity
protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”
Id. (quotation marks omitted).
The district court did not err in finding that the individual defendants were
entitled to qualified immunity. These defendants are not alleged to have done
anything other than perform discretionary functions of their offices; moreover, the
Ethertons have failed to show that their constitutional rights were violated in any
way, much less in a way that was clearly established at the time.
F. Newly Raised Claims
13
Case: 15-15147 Date Filed: 09/26/2016 Page: 14 of 14
For the first time on appeal, the Ethertons claim that the challenged
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and that it
infringes on their covenant of quiet enjoyment. Although we liberally construe pro
se filings, we disagree with the Ethertons that these issues were properly raised in
district court. Furthermore, we generally do not consider issues raised for the first
time on appeal that the district court was not given an opportunity to consider.
Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1332 (11th Cir. 2004).
While under certain circumstances it may be appropriate to exercise discretion and
consider newly raised issues, see id., we find none of those circumstances exists
here. We decline to review the Ethertons’ newly raised claims.
AFFIRMED.
14