Burch v. Smathers

• Decision Date: 03 January 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:12–cv–00632–CWD.
• Citation: 990 F.Supp.2d 1063
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho
• Parties: Keith Reiferd BURCH, Plaintiff, v. Ryan SMATHERS, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Orofino; Ron Banks, Ted Brown, Mike Deitrick, Avery Dunaway, Don Gardner and Marguerite McLaughlin in their official capacities as members of the Orofino City Council, Defendants.

990 F.Supp.2d 1063

Keith Reiferd BURCH, Plaintiff,

v.Ryan SMATHERS, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Orofino; Ron Banks, Ted Brown, Mike Deitrick, Avery Dunaway, Don Gardner and Marguerite McLaughlin in their official capacities as members of the Orofino City Council, Defendants.

Case No. 3:12–cv–00632–CWD.

United States District Court, D. Idaho.

Jan. 3, 2014.

Keith Reiferd Burch, Keith R. Burch Attorney at Law, Orofino, ID, for Plaintiff.

Bentley G. Stromberg, Clements Brown & McNichols, Lewiston, ID, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RE: Dkt. Nos. 22, 36, 58, 65

CANDY W. DALE, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court are four motions pending in this action filed by Plaintiff Keith R. Burch against the Mayor of Orofino and members of the Orofino City Council (collectively, “City Council”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Idaho law. The City Council filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Burch's claims, (Dkt. 22), after which Burch moved to amend the complaint (Dkt. 36) and extend discovery (Dkt. 58). On December 4, 2013, the Court heard oral argument on the three motions and all three were taken under advisement. (Dkt. 64.) For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the City Council's motion for summary judgment, deny Burch's motion to amend, and deny as moot Burch's motion to extend discovery.

Five days after the three motions were taken under advisement, Burch filed a motion to supplement his response to the City Council's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 65). The Court expedited briefing on the motion, the City Council filed a response on December 16, 2013, and Burch filed a reply on January 1, 2014. In the interest of avoiding delay, and because the Court finds the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, Burch's motion to supplement will be decided on the record pursuant to District of Idaho Local Civil Rule 7.1(e). For the reasons discussed more fully below, the Court will deny Burch's motion to supplement.

BACKGROUND

Burch's Complaint alleges the City Council violated his federal procedural due process and equal protection rights by denying a special use permit application he submitted in June 2012. The application sought permission to operate a law office in a single family residential zone. Burch also claims the City's hearing process violated various provisions of Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act (“LLUPA”) (Idaho Code § 67–6501 et seq.) and, by extension, the due process guarantee in the Idaho Constitution. In addition, Burch seeks to supplement his summary judgment response,amend his complaint with a federal substantive due process claim and, depending on the outcome of the City Council's motion for summary judgment, extend discovery in this matter. The City Council argues that Burch has not shown good cause for supplementation, the proposed amendment to add a substantive due process claim is futile, further discovery is unnecessary, and the City Council is entitled to summary judgment on all of Burch's claims.

1. Findings of Fact

The Court finds the following to be the undisputed material facts for the purposes of deciding the City Council's Motion for Summary Judgment. SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The property at the heart of this controversy, 903 Kalaspo Avenue Orofino, Idaho, is located in an R–2 zoning district. (Dkt. 1–1 at 1.) The Orofino City Code defines the R–2 zone as a “Single–Family Dwelling District.” Orofino City Code § 11–2–4. Further, businesses other than small daycare facilities and certain “home occupations” ¹ may operate in the R–2 zone only by obtaining a special use permit. Id. On June 20, 2012, Burch ² filed a written application for a special use permit to operate and post a sign for a law office at 903 Kalaspo Avenue. ( Dkt. 1–1 at 1.) A special use permit is necessary for the proposed law office because, as Burch explains, the office is “incompatible with the uses permitted outright in an R–2 Zone.” (Dkt. 1 ¶ 25.)

Applications for special use permits are considered first by the Orofino Planning and Zoning Commission. Orofino City Code § 11–2–13. If the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the permit, the City Council takes up the matter. Id. After a public hearing on July 17, 2012, the Orofino Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the special use permit requested by Burch. (Dkt. 1–1 at 6.) A public hearing before the Orofino City Council followed on August 28, 2012. ( Id. at 10–13.)

The Council considered Burch's testimony in favor of his application, as well as testimony and letters in opposition to the permit from other city residents and city officials. ( Id.) The hearing minutes show that the opposition to the proposed law office noted its potential to increase traffic congestion and use on-street parking on Kalaspo Avenue. ( Id. at 11–12.) For example, the Orofino Police Chief stated that Kalaspo Avenue becomes congested during school hours and students at the nearby elementary school tend to walk in the middle of the street, as there are no sidewalks. ( Id. at 11.) In addition, several opponents contended the law office would be inconsistent with the residential character of the R–2 zone. ( Id. at 27–28; Dkt. 53–23–9, 11–15.) The hearing minutes also state that, during the City Council's deliberations, Council member McLaughlin indicated Orofino's Comprehensive Plan did not call for a transition from residential to business uses in the R–2 zone. (Dkt. 1–1 at 11–13.) Other Council members voiced concerns over traffic congestion on Kalaspo Avenue, consistency with the area's residential character, and the lack of support for Burch's proposal. ( Id.) Ultimately, the City Council unanimously voted to deny Burch's application. ( Id.)

The City sent Burch a written notice of the Council's decision on September 4, 2012, which states “the Orofino City Council has denied your application for a Special Use Permit....” ( Id. at 26.) The notice further states “the City Council noted that [Burch's] request was not in conformance with the adopted Future Land Use Map within the City's Comprehensive Plan” and “[i]ncreased traffic conditions, the lack of support [for the application] and maintaining the integrity of the R–2 Zone (Residential) were critical components for denying [Burch's] request.” ( Id.) Burch claims the notice omitted certain language required by Idaho law and, thus, does not qualify as notice of a final decision. (Pl.'s Stmt. of Contested Material Facts ¶ 16, Dkt. 53–1.) However, during the Court's hearing on the motions, Burch conceded that the City Council reached a final decision denying his special use permit application.³

According to Burch, the denial of his requested special use permit differs from the Council's treatment of two similar permit applicants. After the denial of Burch's permit, the City Council, in December 2012, approved a special use permit for a law office in an R–3 zone. (Burch Aff. ¶¶ 113–14, Dkt. 53–3.) And, two years before Burch's application, the City Council approved a special use permit for an eight-child daycare in the R–2 zone on H Street, less than one block away from Burch's Kalaspo Avenue home. (Dkt. 1–1 at 15(map), 17 (initial daycare hearing), 24 (daycare approval with conditions).)

The daycare permit was issued to Jennifer Dunaway, the wife of Avery Dunaway, one of the Council members who considered Burch's application. ( Id. at 16–17.) Avery Dunaway was not a member of the City Council in 2010, when his wife received the daycare special use permit. ( Id.) Burch submitted the only letter in opposition to the proposed daycare, in which he expressed concerns that the daycare would reduce the value of his Kalaspo Avenue property through increased noise and traffic not suitable for the residential setting. ( Id. at 18–19.) At an April 13, 2010 hearing on her daycare permit application, Dunaway stated she did not believe traffic would be a problem. ⁴ ( Id. at 17.) Then, at a July 13, 2010 hearing, the City Council approved Dunaway's application subject to certain conditions. ( Id. at 24.) Although Dunaway requested an unconditional permit for a twelve-child daycare, ( Id. at 17), the permit allows only eight children, requires a yearly review, and states that “legitimate complaints may result in ... revocation.” ( Id. at 24.)

2. Procedural Background

Burch filed his Complaint on December 27, 2012. The Complaint names as defendants Ryan Smathers, in his official capacity as the Mayor of the City of Orofino, and individual City Council members—Ron Banks, Ted Brown, Mike Deitrick, Avery Dunaway, Don Gardner, and Marguerite McLaughlin. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Burch alleges that the City Council's deficient hearing procedures and irrational differential treatment of his application deprived him of his federal due process and equal protection rights. In addition, Burch alleges the Council violated various procedural requirements in Idaho's LLUPA and, thus, also infringed upon his due process rights under the Idaho Constitution.

The City Council filed its Answer on January 25, 2013. The Council served by mail its initial discovery disclosures to Burch on March 7, 2013. On the same day, the City Council filed a motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. 22), seeking judgment on all of Burch's claims. This motion for summary judgment was filed less than three months after Burch filed his Complaint.

On March 24, 2013, Burch timely filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the Court granted extension through April 10, 2013. (Dkt. 28.) Then, on April 6, 2013, Burch filed a motion under Rule 56(d) asking the Court for additional time to conduct discovery before responding to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In its May 15, 2013 Order, the Court granted Burch sixty days to conduct discovery, including written interrogatories to all named defendants. (Dkt....