Balunsat v. Cecil Cnty. Gov't
| Decision Date | 21 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. RDB-12-0360 |
| Parties | CRAIG BALUNSAT and FAMILY, Plaintiffs, v. CECIL COUNTY GOVERNMENT, CECIL COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS, CECIL COUNTY OFFICE OF PLANNING AND ZONING, CLIFF HOUSTON, DAVID WILLIS, AND ALL MEMBERS OF CECIL COUNTY BOARD OF APPEALS, ALFRED C. WEIN, JR., and OTHER UNNAMED COUNTY ACTORS, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Pro se plaintiffs Craig Balunsat and his family (together, "Plaintiffs") have filed this action against the Cecil County Government; the Cecil County Board of Appeals; the Cecil County Office of Planning and Zoning; County Zoning Administrator Cliff Houston; Chairperson David Willis and all other members of the Cecil County Board of Appeals; County Administrator Alfred C. Wein, Jr.; and other unnamed county actors. The Plaintiffs, who keep a goat as well as some hens and ducks on their under-one-acre property in Cecil County, Maryland, challenge the constitutionality of and assert other claims related to Article V, Section 58 of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance ("Section 58"), which permits animalhusbandry on Cecil County property provided that the lot size is at least one acre. They allege that Section 58 violates the First, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the United States Constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They also allege that Cecil County's enforcement of Section 58 constitutes an abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Currently pending in state court is an appeal from the Cecil County Zoning Board's decision to enforce Section 58 against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have asked this Court to issue a preliminary injunction and to stay the state court proceedings, and the Defendants have asked this Court to abstain from further action in this matter in light of those state proceedings. The Plaintiffs have also requested a preliminary injunction and an emergency hearing on their motion for a preliminary injunction.
The parties' submissions have been reviewed and no hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2011). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay State Court Proceedings and to Assume Pendant [sic] Jurisdiction (ECF No. 8) is DENIED; Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12) is DENIED; Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Hearing (ECF No. 13) is DENIED; and Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial Abstention (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED in accordance with the abstention doctrine set out in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
Pro se plaintiffs Craig Balunsat and family (together, "Plaintiffs") reside at 433 Basil Avenue in Chesapeake City, Maryland, which is part of Cecil County. Compl. ¶ 8. Their property, which consists of less than one acre, is in Cecil County's residential zone "RR." Id. ¶¶ 18, 22. The Plaintiffs describe the area as "rural." Id. ¶ 22. They keep on their propertyone goat, six hens, two ducks, three dogs, and four cats. Id. ¶ 19. They claim that these animals are all kept as pets and that the Plaintiffs are not "in the business of breeding any of [the] pets for agricultural [purposes] or purposes of monetary gain." Id. ¶ 26.
Article V, Section 58 of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance ("Section 58") permits animal husbandry on property in the RR zone provided that the lot size is at least one acre. See id. ¶ 22; Cecil County Dep't Planning & Zoning, Cecil County Zoning Ordinance Art. V, § 58. The Ordinance defines "animal husbandry" to mean "the raising, boarding, and/or sale of domestic animals other than dogs or cats." Compl. ¶ 21; Cecil County Dep't Planning & Zoning, Cecil County Zoning Ordinance Art. II, § 12. After a neighbor complained about the animals on the Plaintiffs' property, Cecil County's Department of Planning and Zoning investigated the property. Compl. ¶ 17. Sometime in late 2011 or early 2012, a Cecil County enforcement officer ordered the Plaintiffs to remove the goat, hens, and ducks from their property pursuant to Section 58. Id. ¶ 16; Defs.' Mot. ¶ 2. The Plaintiffs appealed that order to the Cecil County Board of Zoning Appeals ("Board of Zoning Appeals"). Defs.' Mot. ¶ 2; see Defs.' Ex. 1.
Several people testified before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Craig Balunsat ("Mr. Balunsat") testified that the animals subject to the removal order were not harming or disturbing anyone, that the surrounding properties were used for agricultural purposes, and that his pet goat "has a gentle personality and is not aggressive." Compl. ¶ 28. Mr. Balunsat further testified that these animals were beneficial pets for his family because they are therapeutic, provide fresh eggs, could provide fresh milk, and "assist in keeping the grasstrim without the harmful emissions and noise pollution as found in certain lawn equipment." Id. Mr. Balunsat's wife, Lisa Balunsat ("Mrs. Balunsat"), testified that she had raised the goat as a pet since birth, that she walks the goat on a leash, and that the children in the family play with the goat. Id. ¶ 31. Mrs. Balunsat also testified that the family's pet hens provided comfort for her mother, who lived with the Plaintiffs. Id. Various grandchildren, friends, and Mrs. Balunsat's mother also testified before the Board of Zoning Appeals, explaining that the animals were family pets and that the family enjoyed playing with them. Id. ¶¶ 34-36. Finally, Cecil County's Zoning Administrator Cliff Houston testified before the board that keeping a goat on the Plaintiffs' property constitutes "animal husbandry." Id. ¶ 12. The Board of Zoning Appeals denied the Plaintiffs' appeal on January 25, 2012, and ordered the Plaintiffs to remove the goat, hens, and ducks within sixty days of the board's opinion. See id. ¶¶ 16, 24; Defs.' Ex. 1.
On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Cecil County. Defs.' Ex. 1. Additionally, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Correct and Expand the Record to include affidavits relating to their arguments under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Defs.' Ex. 3. At a hearing on July 10, 2012, the Circuit Court for Cecil County granted a motion to dismiss filed by the Board of Zoning Appeals and thereby dismissed judicial review of the appeal. The Circuit Court also denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Correct and Expand the Record to include the Plaintiffs' constitutional and other federal claims. The Plaintiffs thereafter appealed the decision to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, where their case is now under review.
The Plaintiffs filed this federal action on February 6, 2012, challenging the Cecil County Government's enforcement of Section 58. Their Complaint asserts six claims: (1) abuse of process; (2) a violation of the First Amendment; (3) a violation of the Ninth Amendment; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (5) a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (6) a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of a declaration that the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance violates federal law and the United States Constitution; a stay of the proceedings in state court; an injunction from the Defendants' enforcement of Section 58 of the Cecil County Zoning Ordinance; and compensatory and punitive damages. Compl. 12. Pending before this Court are Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay State Court Proceedings and to Assume Pendant [sic] Jurisdiction (ECF No. 8); Plaintiffs' Motion for Emergency Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 12) and Motion for an Emergency Hearing for Emergency Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 13); and Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial Abstention (ECF No. 23), in which they ask this Court to abstain from adjudicating this matter in accordance with the abstention doctrine set out in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Because this Court's decisions on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay State Court Proceedings and the Defendants' Motion Requesting Judicial Abstention dispose of this case, these motions will be addressed first.
The Plaintiffs have asked this Court to stay the state court proceedings relating to the Cecil County Zoning Board's enforcement of Section 58. This request implicates the Anti-Injunction Act, which provides as follows:
A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
22 U.S.C. § 2283. The Anti-Injunction Act constitutes "an absolute prohibition against any injunction of any state-court proceedings, unless the injunction falls within one of the three specifically defined exceptions in the Act." Denny's Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 528-29 (4th Cir. 2004) (quoting Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 630 (1977) (plurality opinion)). The three identified exceptions allow for injunctions "(1) expressly authorized by statute; (2) necessary to aid the court's jurisdiction; or (3) required to protect or effectuate the court's judgments." Id. at 529 (citing Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 146 (1988); Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng'rs, 398 U.S. 281, 287-88 (1970)). Id. at 530 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The United States Supreme Court set forth a doctrine of abstention in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), which is based on the "strong federal policy" against a federal court's interference in a matter pending...
To continue reading
Request your trial