220 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2000), 99-2630, Rozman v. City of Columbia Heights

Docket Nº:99-2630
Citation:220 F.3d 864
Party Name:BENNIE ROZMAN, DOING BUSINESS AS LYNDE INVESTMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT, SUSAN RODRIGUEZ, SHERRI BONIARCZYK, INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF, v. CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, JOSEPH STURDEVANT, WALT FEHST, MEG JONES, ROBERT W. RUETTIMANN, CHARLES KEWATT, LOWELL G. DEMARS, MATT D. FIELD, GARRY GORMAN, ROLLIN GOLDSBERRY, DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.
Case Date:August 08, 2000
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 864

220 F.3d 864 (8th Cir. 2000)

BENNIE ROZMAN, DOING BUSINESS AS LYNDE INVESTMENT COMPANY, PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,

SUSAN RODRIGUEZ, SHERRI BONIARCZYK, INTERVENOR PLAINTIFF,

v.

CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, JOSEPH STURDEVANT, WALT FEHST, MEG JONES, ROBERT W. RUETTIMANN, CHARLES KEWATT, LOWELL G. DEMARS, MATT D. FIELD, GARRY GORMAN, ROLLIN GOLDSBERRY, DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES.

No. 99-2630

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

August 8, 2000

Submitted: May 12, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

Page 865

Before Mcmillian, Bright, and Wood 1Circuit Judges.

Bright, Circuit Judge.

Bennie Rozman ("Rozman"), d/b/a Lynde Investment Company, appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the City of Columbia Heights ("City"). Rozman sued the City in district court for allegedly violating his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violating his Fourth Amendment rights, and violating his constitutional right to equal protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Rozman also sought a preliminary injunction preventing the City from revoking Rozman's rental licenses. The court rejected Rozman's numerous constitutional claims and denied his motion for a preliminary injunction against the City. Rozman further asked the district court to exert supplemental jurisdiction over his pendent state law claims, but the court dismissed them without prejudice upon granting summary judgment to the City on Rozman's federal claims.

Rozman now asks this court to reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment on his substantive due process claim under § 1983, and he requests that this court direct the district court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. We reject these requests and affirm.

I. Background

The City of Columbia Heights requires owners of residential rental property to obtain rental licenses before they may rent their properties to tenants. Rental property owners must then renew these licenses annually. Since 1994, the City's Housing Maintenance Code ("City Code"), under § 5A.303(1), has required the City to inspect rental housing annually. Since the annual inspection requirement has been in effect, City practice has been to schedule a date for rental apartment inspection with the landlord, and require that landlords notify their tenants that the City intends to conduct the inspection. The inspections routinely coincide with the annual renewal of each rental property's rental license.

The City Code empowers City inspectors to conduct the annual inspection on twenty-four hours notice "to the owner, occupant, manager, or person in charge" of the dwelling. Section 5A.301(1).2 Under

Page 866

§§ 5A.603 and 5A.608, the owner or occupant may not refuse to allow the inspector to enter the premises. The City Code further states that violation of any provision of the Code is a misdemeanor. See § 5A.611. Finally, § 5A.302 of the Code explains that the City may obtain search warrants for the inspections if the owner or occupant refuses to provide access to the dwelling.

At the time he initiated this lawsuit, Rozman owned and managed twelve residential rental properties in Columbia Heights, Minnesota. Rozman complied with the City's annual inspection program until 1996, at which time his concerns about the constitutionality of the program motivated him to refuse to perform the landlord's expected role in the City's inspection program. Rozman informed the City that he would neither give notice to his tenants of the upcoming inspection, nor would he grant access to any of the rental units without a showing...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP